People v. Montgomery, 18 N.Y.2d 993 (1966)
The State violates the equal protection clause when it denies an indigent defendant a transcript of a preliminary hearing solely due to their inability to pay.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that an indigent defendant is entitled to a free transcript of their preliminary hearing. The defendant requested a transcript accompanied by an affidavit of indigency, but the request was denied. The Court reasoned that while Section 206 of the Code of Criminal Procedure grants a right to a transcript upon payment, the State cannot condition the exercise of this right on the ability to pay, as it violates equal protection. The court emphasized that such requests must be made with enough advance notice to allow for transcription without delaying the trial.
Facts
The defendant requested a transcript of the preliminary hearing. This request was accompanied by an affidavit of indigency, indicating an inability to pay for the transcript. The trial court denied the request.
Procedural History
The case originated in the Supreme Court, Queens County. After the trial court denied the defendant’s request for a free preliminary hearing transcript, the case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remitted the case for a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the State can deny an indigent defendant access to a transcript of a preliminary hearing solely because of their inability to pay, consistent with the equal protection clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions.
Holding
Yes, because the State cannot condition a right (access to a preliminary hearing transcript) on a defendant’s ability to pay, as this violates the equal protection clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that when the State affords a defendant a right, the exercise of that right cannot be conditioned on the ability to pay. They cited Section 206 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which grants the right to a preliminary hearing transcript upon payment. The court found that denying an indigent defendant access to this transcript solely due to their inability to pay violates equal protection. The Court relied on precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States, including Griffin v. Illinois, which established that providing different treatment based on wealth in criminal proceedings is unconstitutional.
The Court stated, “When the State constitutionally or statutorily affords a defendant a right, the exercise thereof cannot be conditioned upon the defendant’s ability to pay.” The Court also emphasized the importance of timely requests for transcripts to avoid delaying the trial.