New York Law Review

Tag: Preliminary Hearing Transcript

  • People v. Zabrocky, 26 N.Y.2d 305 (1970): The Timing of Requesting Preliminary Hearing Transcripts

    People v. Zabrocky, 26 N.Y.2d 305 (1970)

    A defendant’s right to a preliminary hearing transcript is not absolute; a request must be made far enough in advance of trial to prevent unnecessary delay, irrespective of the defendant’s financial status.

    Summary

    Zabrocky was convicted of burglary. Before trial, his counsel requested an adjournment to obtain the preliminary hearing transcript, a request denied by the trial court. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the denial was an abuse of discretion because the defendant had a right to the transcript and the delay was not demonstrably his fault. The dissent argued that the request was untimely and would have caused significant delay, thereby justifying the trial court’s decision.

    Facts

    The defendant was arrested and arraigned on March 23, 1966. He was represented by retained counsel at the preliminary hearing on April 27, 1966. The case was adjourned to June 1, 1966, for trial, and then again to June 7, 1966. Immediately before the trial on June 7, the defense counsel requested an adjournment to obtain the minutes of the preliminary hearing. The complainant was leaving town for the summer, meaning an adjournment would have delayed the trial until September.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted at trial. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his request for an adjournment to obtain the preliminary hearing transcript. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding that the trial court abused its discretion.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendant’s request for an adjournment to obtain a transcript of the preliminary hearing, made immediately before the trial was scheduled to begin.

    Holding

    Yes, because the defendant has a right to the preliminary hearing transcript, and the denial effectively deprived him of a fair trial. The request for the transcript should have been granted, or the minutes should have been supplied at public expense.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that denying the defendant the preliminary hearing transcript impairs his ability to effectively cross-examine witnesses and prepare his defense. Quoting from People v. Montgomery, 18 N.Y.2d 993 (1966), the court stated that the defendant has a right to the transcript to assist in his defense. The court emphasized that the delay in requesting the transcript should be considered in light of whether it was the defendant’s fault or due to circumstances beyond his control. The court distinguished People v. Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600 (1967), noting that in Ballott, the adjournment requested was only for a week to raise money for the transcript, and there was no indication of inertia on the defendant’s part. The dissent argued that the defendant had ample time to request the transcript and that the last-minute request would cause significant delay, thereby justifying the trial court’s denial. Judge Jasen, in dissent, stated, “In each case, however, the orderly administration of justice mandates that a request for court assistance in obtaining a transcript, when such assistance is required, ‘be made far enough in advance of trial to give the State a reasonable amount of time to transcribe the minutes and to avoid the necessity of suspending the trial pending the production of the transcript.’”

  • 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.