concurring in results:
While I agree that appellant’s conviction and sentence should be affirmed, I write separately to the issue of whether the trial court should have appointed a private investigator for appellant. Title 22 O.S.Supp.1985, § 464(B), authorizes the district courts to provide expert witnesses, such as private investigators, to indigent defendants accused of capital offenses. The statute sets a limit of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) as compensation for such experts. If there are extraordinary expenses incurred by experts, then an application for those extraordinary expenses may be made to the district court after final disposition of the case.
However, the compensation of an expert has nothing to do with whether appellant should have been afforded a private investigator at state expense. The statute provides for appointment of an expert at the discretion of the district courts. In order for appellant to prevail on this issue, he must be able to demonstrate that the trial court abused that discretion in this case. From the facts presented both at the trial level and now on appeal, it does not appear that any abuse of discretion occurred. The trial court conducted a hearing on appellant’s motion for a private investigator. *280Although appellant contends that he was precluded at that time from presenting evidence that would have demonstrated the substantial need for a private investigator, appellant has also failed on appeal to demonstrate how the lack of an investigator has undermined the outcome or fairness of the proceedings below. See Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 324 f. 1, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 2637 f. 1, 86 L.Ed.2d 231, 236 f. 1 (1985). Without more, I find no abuse of discretion by the trial court.