Armour v. State, 59897
| Decision Date | 22 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 59897,No. 3,59897,3 |
| Citation | 606 S.W.2d 891 |
| Parties | Frederick Clyde ARMOUR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
James M. Murphy, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Maridell Templeton and Les Eubanks, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before PHILLIPS, TOM G. DAVIS and DALLY, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for aggravated robbery. Punishment is imprisonment for 35 years.
Appellant contends that the court erred in failing to afford him a transcription of the court reporter's notes from his former trial, which ended in a mistrial. We reverse.
Appellant's first trial in this cause extended from February 6 to February 13, 1978. It ended in a mistrial when one of the jurors confessed a prejudice against appellant. A new trial was set for March 20, 1978. On February 28, 1978, appellant filed a sworn motion for a trial transcript, alleging that he was indigent and that the transcription of the court reporter's notes was "essential to the proper preparation and handling of his defense upon retrial."
On March 22, 1978, immediately prior to the commencement of the second trial, appellant reurged his motion, and also made a motion that the cause be continued until the court reporter could be ordered to transcribe the proceedings of the former trial. Appellant informed the court that on February 28 he had presented his motion for a trial transcript to the presiding judge of the trial court, and despite repeated attempts had been unable to obtain a ruling on the motion. In support of his motion appellant urged that the transcription of the court reporter's notes from the former trial was necessary to prepare for the second trial, specifically in order to impeach two of the State's witnesses who had testified in the former trial. Appellant argued that as an indigent he was entitled to the transcription of the notes as a matter of equal protection of the law.
Despite appellant's request for a ruling, the court refused to rule on appellant's motion for a trial transcript. The court also denied appellant's motion for continuance. The record reflects the following regarding the court's actions:
THE COURT: Well, the Court takes this view of it. I don't want to deny any of you any rights but at the same time I can't see why you have to have a complete transcript of all that happened over a week's trial here within thirty days. It is almost impossible to get a transcript that fast.
You don't know when you would get this transcript, do you?
Now, this same court reporter, as I understand it, took the testimony in that case and it ought to be pretty fresh in her mind. It's been about thirty days ago and if one of these witnesses has changed their testimony all you have to do is go to this court reporter and say, "I want those notes and I may want to use you to show he said something else."
... (Y)ou are not entitled to a motion for continuance because I'm going to make every effort to see if there's anything in that transcript that you need we are going to get it during this trial. But to just make out the whole transcript of all the testimony, I think that's a little bit too much, to require the State to do that.
Although the court refused to expressly rule on appellant's motion for a trial transcript, its action in refusing to grant a continuance to enable the court reporter to transcribe her notes of the former trial amounted to a denial of appellant's request for a transcription of the notes. Furthermore, appellant filed his motion for a trial transcript in a timely fashion, almost a month before the commencement of the second trial. The record indicates that appellant's counsel presented the motion to Judge James Zimmerman, presiding judge of the trial court, and several times thereafter spoke with Judge Zimmerman about obtaining a ruling, but was unable to obtain one. The trial judge expressly refused to rule on the motion though urged to do so by counsel. Appellant brought the motion to the court's attention, and was diligent in attempting to secure a ruling on the motion. We hold that appellant has preserved his error with respect to the motion. Cf. Martinez v. State, 565 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978); Terry v. State, 517 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975).
At trial Robert Carnahan testified that he was robbed at gun point by appellant and another man. Appellant attempted to impeach Carnahan on cross-examination by exposing inconsistencies with Carnahan's testimony at the former trial. On two occasions appellant asked for a sufficient length of time to review the court reporter's notes from the former trial, in order to locate inconsistent testimony. In the interest of saving time the court did not allow appellant to review the testimony immediately. Instead, the court had appellant continue cross-examining the witness. Appellant was allowed to review the reporter's notes that evening, after cessation of the trial for the day. The following day appellant called Carnahan as an adverse witness, and attempted to impeach him by having the court reporter read at length from portions of her notes of the former trial.
Appellant chiefly relies on Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 92 S.Ct. 431, 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971) in support of his claim that he was entitled to a transcription of the court reporter's notes from his first trial. Britt stands for the proposition that:
... the State must, as a matter of equal protection, provide indigent prisoners with the basic tools of an adequate defense or appeal, when those tools are available for a price to other prisoners. While the outer limits of that principle are not clear, there can be no doubt that the State must provide an indigent defendant with a transcript of prior proceedings when that transcript is needed for an effective defense or appeal. (footnote omitted)
404 U.S. at 227, 92 S.Ct. at 433. See also Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189, 92 S.Ct. 410, 30 L.Ed.2d 372 (1971); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956). Under the authority of Britt this Court recently held that two indigent defendants were entitled, as a matter of equal protection, to a free copy of the transcription of the testimony of the state's witnesses from a prior trial which ended in a mistrial. Billie v. State, 605 S.W.2d 558 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980), Opinion on State's Motion for Rehearing.
The Supreme Court in Britt identified two factors relevant to the determination of need: (1) the value of the transcript of the former trial to the defendant in connection with the appeal or trial for which it is sought, and (2) the availability of alternative devices that would fulfill the same function as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Easily v. State
...just how many more inconsistencies existed for impeachment purposes." Id. at 560 (emphasis in original). Similarly, in Armour v. State, 606 S.W.2d 891 (Tex.Crim.App.1980), we found reversible error in the trial judge's denial of the defendant's motion for a continuance, when such motion had......
-
McKibbon v. State
...of Britt v. North Carolina and our interpretation there, reversible error. (footnote omitted) Shortly thereafter, in Armour v. State, 606 S.W.2d 891 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), we held the accused is presumed to have a need for a transcription of the court reporter's notes from his first trial. Furt......
-
Williams v. State
...Defense counsel has an obligation to be diligent in attempting to secure a ruling by the trial judge on his objection. Armour v. State, 606 S.W.2d 891 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Hanner v. State, 572 S.W.2d 702 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). When an adverse ruling is not obtained on an objection, error is n......
-
Escobar v. State
...433, 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971) (citing Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 19, 76 S.Ct. 585, 591, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956)); see also Armour v. State, 606 S.W.2d 891, 893, 894 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Billie v. State, 605 S.W.2d 558, 560, 562 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (appellant had right to trans......
-
Discovery
...cases, the accused is presumed to have a need for the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from his first trial. Armour v. State, 606 S.W.2d 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Furthermore, the defendant does not bear the burden of showing a particularized need for the transcript, nor of sho......
-
Discovery
...cases, the accused is presumed to have a need for the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from his first trial. Armour v. State, 606 S.W.2d 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Furthermore, the defendant does not bear the burden of showing a particularized need for the transcript, nor of sho......
-
Discovery motions
...cases, the accused is presumed to have a need for the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from his first trial. Armour v. State , 606 S.W.2d 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Furthermore, the defendant does not bear the burden of showing a particularized need for the transcript, nor of sh......
-
Discovery
...cases, the accused is presumed to have a need for the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from his first trial. Armour v. State, 606 S.W.2d 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Furthermore, the defendant does not bear the burden of showing a particularized need for the transcript, nor of sho......