concurs, particularly noting that the sanity commission is not shown to have examined defendant as to capacity at the time of the alleged offenses; he is entitled to have an expert examination on the issue since the burden of proof is on him. C.Cr.P. arts. 650 and 652. Also important is the fact that he has a history of mental problems. See Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985).

would grant, being of the opinion that the court of appeal erred in reversing the trial judge’s denial of defendant’s motion for fees to obtain an expert psychiatrist. Defendant has not made the requisite showing under Ake v. Oklahoma, *451470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), that his sanity at the time of the offense will be a significant factor at trial.

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writ; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number KW90-1259; Parish of Calcasieu 14th Judicial District Court Div. “A” Number KW90-1259.

Denied.