New York Law Review

Tag: Indigent defendants

  • Harrington v. State, 54 N.Y.2d 624 (1981): Who Pays for Trial Transcripts on Appeal?

    Harrington v. State, 54 N.Y.2d 624 (1981)

    When a non-indigent defendant appeals a conviction, they are responsible for paying for the trial transcripts required to be filed with the court.

    Summary

    This case concerns who bears the cost of trial transcripts when a defendant appeals a conviction in New York. Harrington, a non-indigent defendant, appealed his conviction. The central issue is whether the state is obligated to pay for the trial transcripts required for the appeal, even though Harrington is not indigent. The New York Court of Appeals held that non-indigent defendants are responsible for paying for their own trial transcripts when pursuing an appeal. The court reasoned that a 1977 amendment to CPL 460.70 (subd 1) was intended to reduce the financial burden on taxpayers by requiring non-indigent defendants to pay for their transcripts.

    Facts

    Harrington, a defendant who was not classified as indigent, appealed his criminal conviction. As part of the appeal process, a trial transcript was required to be filed with the court. Harrington sought to have the State of New York cover the cost of preparing this transcript.

    Procedural History

    The specific procedural history prior to the appeal is not detailed in the opinion. However, the case reached the New York Court of Appeals after a decision by the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division’s decision is referenced as supporting the idea that the public should bear the cost of the transcript. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.

    Issue(s)

    Whether CPL 460.70(1) requires the state to pay for trial transcripts when a non-indigent defendant files an appeal pursuant to CPL 450.10.

    Holding

    No, because the 1977 amendment to CPL 460.70(1) was intended to place the cost of preparing transcripts upon the individual prosecuting the appeal who is able to afford it, and to reduce the financial burden on taxpayers.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals focused on the legislative intent behind the 1977 amendment to CPL 460.70 (subd 1). Prior to 1977, the state bore the expense of transcripts regardless of the defendant’s indigency. The amendment conspicuously omitted the broad provision requiring the public to pay for all transcripts and instead specified that “[t]he expense of transcripts prepared for poor persons under this section shall be a state charge.” The court interpreted this omission as intentional, designed to reduce unnecessary expenditures of public funds. The dissent quotes Assemblyman Siegel, the sponsor of the legislation, stating the bill insures transcript preparation at government expense “only when the defendant manifests an actual intent to appeal and when the defendant is unable to afford transcripts.” This legislative history further supports the view that the amendment was intended to provide for public assumption of costs only when the defendant is indigent. The court also referenced a memorandum from the Office of Court Administration, stating that “[b]y the courts’ not ordering the minutes until a poor person application is made, the public is also spared the expense of paying for minutes in cases where the defense is able to afford them.” This interpretation aligns with the State Comptroller’s opinion that “where the defendant takes an appeal and is not indigent, the cost of transcripts must be borne by the defendant.” The court emphasizes that agencies charged with implementing the statute’s interpretations should not be lightly disregarded.

  • People v. Montgomery, 18 N.Y.2d 993 (1966): Indigent Defendants’ Right to Preliminary Hearing Transcripts

    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.