In re Eric W., 47 N.Y.2d 633 (1979)

An indigent juvenile defendant does not have an automatic due process right to a free transcript of a pretrial suppression hearing where there is no showing of prejudice resulting from its absence and the pretrial and fact-finding hearings are brief and involve the same witnesses, counsel, and judge.

Summary

Three juvenile delinquency proceedings were consolidated on appeal. In each case, the juvenile was charged with an act that would constitute a crime if committed by an adult. After brief pretrial suppression hearings followed by fact-finding hearings, the juveniles were adjudicated delinquent. The juveniles appealed, arguing that the denial of adjournments to obtain transcripts of the pretrial hearings violated their due process rights. The New York Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals, holding that, absent a showing of prejudice, there was no due process violation in denying the adjournment for transcription, especially where the hearings were brief and involved the same participants.

Facts

Each appellant, a juvenile under 16, was charged with an act that would constitute a crime if committed by an adult. Each Family Court held a brief Wade or Huntley hearing (well under an hour) followed immediately by a fact-finding hearing (no longer than two hours). The judge and counsel were the same at both hearings. In Eric W. and Arthur L.. defense counsel requested copies of the transcripts of the hearings, as well as adjournments of the fact-finding hearings to permit transcription, which were denied. In Dwayne R., counsel requested a transcript of the Huntley hearing and an adjournment to permit transcription at the beginning of the fact-finding hearing, which was also denied.

Procedural History

In each case, the appellant was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent by the Family Court. On appeal from the Family Court order of disposition, the Appellate Division affirmed without opinion. The appeals were then taken to the New York Court of Appeals on constitutional grounds.

Issue(s)

Whether the Family Court erred in denying adjournments of the fact-finding hearings to allow the juveniles to obtain transcripts of the pretrial suppression hearings, thereby violating their due process rights?

Holding

No, because, on the facts presented, the denial of trial adjournments was not even an abuse of discretion, considering the briefness of the hearings, the presence of all parties, and the absence of demonstrated prejudice. In the case of Dwayne R., the constitutional issue had not been properly preserved for review.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the decision to grant an adjournment is generally within the trial court’s discretion and not a constitutional matter. While indigent defendants have a constitutional right to a free transcript of pretrial suppression hearings, this right stems from equal protection principles, ensuring they receive the same access as defendants with funds. The court stated that, “where a defendant with funds is entitled to procure a pretrial transcript, the equal protection clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions…afford an indigent defendant a similar right.”

Here, equal protection wasn’t implicated, and the due process claims lacked merit. The court emphasized that the hearings were brief, and all parties were present and able to proceed without delay. The court highlighted that the appellants did not claim any prejudice resulted from proceeding from the pretrial to the fact-finding hearings, where the same witnesses, counsel, and judge were present. The court stressed that there was no indication how the absence of the transcripts specifically prejudiced the juveniles’ defense. Furthermore, with regard to Dwayne R., the Court noted that the request for a transcript had to be made prior to the conclusion of the pretrial hearing to preserve the issue for review.