State v. Breitenbach

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Corbin J. Breitenbach's convictions for attempted capital murder, aggravated criminal sodomy, and aggravated burglary. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying requests for independent DNA testing, substitute counsel, standby counsel, or a new trial, and addressed the standards governing expert services for indigent defendants, attorney substitution, self-representation, and Brady claims.

Holdings

1. An indigent defendant seeking publicly funded expert services must show both financial inability to pay and that the requested services are necessary to an adequate defense. A defendant has no absolute right to independent DNA testing upon request and must make a specific showing of need.
2. A defendant seeking substitute appointed counsel must show justifiable dissatisfaction, such as a conflict of interest, an irreconcilable conflict, or a complete breakdown in communication. A defendant has no right to choose which attorney will be appointed, and dissatisfaction based on a matter that replacement counsel could not remedy does not establish justifiable dissatisfaction.
3. The appointment of standby counsel for a self-represented defendant is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and is not compelled merely because standby counsel might assist the defendant or make the court's work easier.
4. Delayed disclosure of potentially favorable evidence does not constitute a Brady violation unless the defendant establishes that the delay prevented effective use of the evidence and caused material prejudice. The fingerprint report was disclosed during trial, and Breitenbach did not show that the disclosure was suppressed or that the evidence created a reasonable probability of a different result.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Breitenbach's request for publicly funded independent DNA testing.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Breitenbach's request for substitute appointed counsel.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Breitenbach's request for standby counsel after he elected self-representation.
4. Whether the State violated Brady v. Maryland by disclosing a fingerprint-analysis report during trial rather than earlier.
5. Whether cumulative error deprived Breitenbach of a fair trial.

Disposition

affirmed