Criminal Practice – Reimbursement from SC Commission on Indigent Defense – Expert Witness Fees

Listen to this article

The trial court correctly found Defendant failed to adhere to the Policy in seeking payment for expert witness fees.

We affirmed.

Defendant appealed the trial court’s ruling that he is not entitled to reimbursement from the Commission on Indigent Defense for expert witness expenses incurred for his murder trial. Defendant contended that the Commission’s procedures for reviewing voucher requests do not apply when the trial court has issued a funding order from an ex parte proceeding. The Voucher Order provides “Nothing herein shall preclude the trial court from taking immediate action on ex parte requests for fees and costs during the pendency of a case as may be authorized by statute or court rule.” However, neither this Court’s nor the Commission’s procedures contradict this provision. Indigent defendants still must present voucher requests for expert witness fees to the trial court. Then, as the legislature specifically required, defendants must submit the court-approved vouchers to the Commission for its review pursuant to the Commission’s procedures and policies.

As the Policy explains, “Submission of the funding order prior to the expenses being incurred will allow SCCID to address any issues with the Order prior to the attorney or service providers incurring any costs.” The procedures this Court and the Commission developed for the Commission to conduct its statutorily mandated review of vouchers do not set a time limit for the Commission’s objections nor do they require the objections to be in the form of a motion. Instead, the Commission must relay its objections to the trial court in writing or by e-mail. Here, the Commission’s December 20, 2023, letter to the trial court followed those procedures. Therefore, we held that the Commission sufficiently conveyed its objections to the Funding Orders to the trial court, and the trial court had jurisdiction to consider those objections.

In addition, we held the trial court correctly found Defendant failed to adhere to the Policy in seeking payment for the expert witness fees. The Policy requires defendants to submit funding orders to the Commission within fifteen days of the trial court signing them. Here, the trial court issued the Funding Orders on October 13, 2023, and November 2, 2023. It tried the case on November 8-9, 2023. Defendant did not submit the Funding Orders to the Commission until December 12, 2023. Defendant did not challenge the trial court’s finding that his failure to follow the Policy prevents him from being able to compel the Commission to pay the expert witness fees. Accordingly, we affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the Commission was not in contempt for failing to remit the expert funding.

Affirmed.

Ex Parte: South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense v. Kenneth Henry Eastwood (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 013-008-25, 4 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Orangeburg County Circuit Court (Maite Murphy, J.) Ashley B. Cornwell, of Cornwell Law Firm, LLC, of Mount Pleasant, for Appellant. Executive Director James Hugh Ryan, III and Deputy Director and General Counsel Hervery B. O. Young, both of Columbia, for Respondent South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, both of Columbia, for Respondent The State of South Carolina. South Carolina Supreme Court Unpublished