People v. Bethune, No. 61 (N.Y. 2017)

A trial court has discretion to resettle a trial transcript without a reconstruction hearing, but the court’s decision must be based on sufficient information to determine the accuracy of the record, and the better practice is to hold a reconstruction hearing when the accuracy of the record is in doubt.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court properly resettled a trial transcript without holding a reconstruction hearing. The defendant argued that the trial court erred in correcting the transcript of jury instructions without a hearing, particularly where the correction involved alleged errors by the trial judge. The court held that while a reconstruction hearing is often advisable, it is not always required. In this case, the court had sufficient information to correct the transcript based on the court reporter’s certified amended transcript, the context of the error, and the absence of objections at trial. The court affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court.

Facts

Jamar Bethune was convicted of second-degree murder and criminal possession of a weapon. On appeal, Bethune contended that the trial court provided a flawed supplemental jury instruction, as transcribed, which described intentional murder as unintentional. The People, believing the transcription was a typographical error, asked the court reporter to review her notes. The reporter confirmed that the transcript contained errors, and a corrected transcript was prepared. The trial court resettled the transcript in accordance with the corrected version over Bethune’s objection, without conducting a reconstruction hearing.

Procedural History

Bethune was convicted by a jury in Supreme Court. He appealed the conviction, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in how it instructed the jury. The Appellate Division upheld the Supreme Court’s decision to resettle the transcript without a reconstruction hearing. The Court of Appeals then heard the case.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by correcting the trial transcript without holding a reconstruction hearing?

Holding

1. No, because the trial court had sufficient information to determine the accuracy of the transcript, and the court did not abuse its discretion.

Court’s Reasoning

The court recognized that the trial judge is the final arbiter of the record. While reconstruction hearings are often beneficial, they are not mandated in every instance where there’s a dispute about the record. The court cited its prior ruling in People v. Santorelli, stating that a hearing is unnecessary when the court has enough information to understand what originally occurred. In this case, the trial court considered the court reporter’s certified amended transcript, the context of the alleged error (including the absence of objections at trial), and an affidavit from the assistant district attorney summarizing the reporter’s findings. The court also noted that the alleged misstatements were not objected to during trial, and two of the five alleged errors were attributed to defense counsel, not the court. The court emphasized that, although not ideal, these factors supported the trial court’s decision to resettle the transcript without a hearing. While concurring opinions emphasized