COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY V. HON. LEWIS G. PAISLEY, SPECIAL JUDGE AND KARU GENE WHITE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
~sUyrrmt ~Vurf vf "Pfttu
-2006-SC-0328-OA
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
ORIGINAL ACTION IN
SUPREME COURT
POWELL CIRCUIT COURT NO. 79-CR-24
HON. LEWIS G. PAISLEY, SPECIAL
JUDGE
APPELLEE
AND
KARU GENE WHITE
(REAL PARTY IN INTEREST)
APPELLEE
OPINION AND ORDER BY JUSTICE GRAVES
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT
The Commonwealth petitions this Court for a writ to prohibit Appellee, Senior
Judge Lewis G. Paisley, sitting specially in the Powell Circuit Court, from ordering the
Finance and Administration Cabinet to pay $5,000 for private mental health testing of
Karu Gene White, Real Party in Interest, to determine whether White is mentally
retarded and, thus, ineligible for imposition of the death penalty . For the reasons stated
herein, we grant the petition .
In 1980, White was convicted in the Powell Circuit Court of the robberies and
murders of three persons, and he was sentenced to death . His convictions were
affirmed by this Court in White v. Commonwealth , 671 S.W.2d 241 (Ky. 1983), cert.
denied , 469 U .S. 963, 105 S .Ct. 363, 83 L.Ed .2d 299 (1984) . His subsequent RCr
11 .42 motion was denied, and that denial was also affirmed on appeal. He then
petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky. That case is in abeyance pending the outcome of White's present
claim that his execution is precluded by the fact that he is mentally retarded .
Following the United States Supreme Court's holding in Atkins v. Virginia, 536
U .S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed .2d 335 (2002), that the execution of a mentally
retarded person violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, White
filed a motion in the Powell Circuit Court "pursuant to RCr 11 .42, CR 60.02, and CR
60.03" to set aside his death sentence on grounds that he is mentally retarded .'
Although White's intelligence quotient (I .Q.) has never been determined by testing, his
petition described deficits in adaptive behavior that convinced Judge Paisley that there
was sufficient "doubt as to whether he is mentally retarded" to warrant an evidentiary
hearing. Bowling v. Commonwealth , 163 S .W .3d 361, 384 (Ky. 2005). In a subsequent
order, Judge Paisley ordered the Finance and Administration Cabinet to pay up to
$5,000 for mental health testing by an expert of White's choosing, overruling the
Commonwealth's objection .
We have long held that a defendant is entitled to receive the expert assistance
necessary to prove a mitigating circumstance. Smith v. Commonwealth , 734 S .W.2d
437, 456 (Ky. 1987).
The establishment of mitigating circumstances at the penalty phase is of
the greatest importance when a defendant is facing the death penalty . To
' We subsequently held in Bowling v. Commonwealth , 163 S .W.3d 361 (Ky. 2005), that
CR 60.02 is the appropriate vehicle for this type of claim. Id . at 365 .
2
deny Smith the means to obtain expert testimony was an abuse of
discretion .
Mental retardation is not a "defense" to the crime but a circumstance that mitigates the
punishment. Bowling, 163 S .W .3d at 381 . White has never had an opportunity to
assert and prove entitlement to this mitigator. Id . at 377. Accordingly, it was no doubt
proper for Judge Paisley to order mental health testing for White.
A defendant, however, is not automatically entitled to receive funds from the
state for the purpose of hiring an expert of his choosing . Instead, KRS 31 .185 makes
clear that
any defending attorney . . . is entitled to use the same state facilities for the
evaluation of evidence as are available to the attorney representing the
Commonwealth. If he or she considers their use impractical, the court
concerned may authorize the use of private facilities to be paid for on
court order from the special account of the Finance and Administration
Cabinet.
Id. (emphasis added) .
Therefore, it was an abuse of discretion for Judge Paisley to order the Finance and
Administration Cabinet to pay up to $5,000 for a private psychologist without the
requisite showing that the use of state facilities was somehow impractical in this case.2
Yet, demonstration of error does not necessarily entitle the Commonwealth to
relief. It has been established that a writ of prohibition "is an `extraordinary remedy' that
Kentucky courts `have always been cautious and conservative both in entertaining
petitions for and in granting such relief."' Newell Enterprises, Inc . v. Bowling , 158
S .W .3d 750, 754 (Ky. 2005) (quoting Bender v. Eaton , 343 S.W.2d 799, 800 (Ky.
1961)). The merits of any such writ will not be considered and the petition denied if the
2 Perception of bias alone is not enough to show use of state facilities is impractical .
There must be proof of actual bias.
3
party requesting the writ cannot first demonstrate a minimum threshold showing of harm
and lack of redressability on appeal . The St. Luke Hospitals, Inc. v. Kopowski, 160
S.W.3d 771, 774 (Ky. 2005).
When conducting the minimum threshold analysis, the Court typically divides writ
cases into "two classes, which are distinguished by whether the inferior court allegedly
is (1) acting without jurisdiction (which includes beyond its jurisdiction), or (2) acting
erroneously within its jurisdiction ." Newell Enterprises, Inc. , supra at 754 (citations
omitted) . In this case, the Commonwealth argues that the trial court is acting
erroneously within its jurisdiction . We agree.
"Under the second class of cases, a writ may be granted upon a showing that the
lower court is acting or is about to act erroneously, although within its jurisdiction, and
there exists no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise and great injustice and
irreparable injury will result if the petition is not granted ." Newell Enterprises, Inc. , supra
at 754 (citations omitted) . Since White is indigent, the Commonwealth would be unable
to recoup the funds once they are expended, thereby satisfying the inadequate remedy
requirement . In addition, these facts are capable of frequent repetition and would cause
the Commonwealth to suffer irreparable injury in the form of massive payouts of funds
to indigent defendants seeking private expert opinions . Therefore, we hold that the
Commonwealth has met both (1) its burden to justify the granting of a writ ; and (2) its
burden to show an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
Accordingly, the Commonwealth's petition for a writ of prohibition is GRANTED.
Judge Paisley is prohibited from ordering the Finance and Administration Cabinet to pay
up to $5,000 for a private expert of White's choosing without the requisite showing that
use of a state facility is somehow impractical .
Lambert, C.J., Graves, McAnulty, Roach, Scott, and Wintersheimer, J.J, concur.
Minton, J ., dissents, and would deny the writ.
ENTERED : September 21, 2006.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.