Com. v. Harris

Decision Date24 July 1978
Citation376 Mass. 74,379 N.E.2d 1073
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. Raymond HARRIS.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Scott E. Shteir, Brookline, for defendant.

Paul A. Mishkin, Sp. Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

Before HENNESSEY, C. J., and QUIRICO, BRAUCHER, LIACOS and ABRAMS, JJ.

ABRAMS, Justice.

After a jury trial the defendant, Raymond Harris (Harris), was convicted of unlawful possession of heroin with intent to distribute and unlawful possession of marihuana with intent to distribute. He timely filed a claim of appeal, and the Superior Court judge ordered the preparation of four copies of the transcript. On learning that all the stenographic notes of the trial, with the exception of the charge to the jury, had been stolen from the court reporter's car, 1 Harris filed a motion for a new trial. Following a hearing on this motion, the judge took the matter under advisement. Without determining the issue, the judge reserved and reported the case to the Appeals Court. We transferred the case on our own motion. The sole issue before us is whether, when a major portion of the stenographic notes of a trial is unavailable through no fault of either party, a new trial is automatically required. We conclude that a new trial is not necessarily mandated in such circumstances.

The defendant's appeal is subject to G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33H. 2 Section 33A, as amended through St.1974, c. 540, § 2, provides in part: "(A)t the request of either party as provided in section thirty-one, upon an indictment or complaint for any . . . felony (other than murder or manslaughter), and a misdemeanor tried with such felony governed by this and the seven following sections, the evidence taken . . . (by a stenographer) shall be transcribed in such number of copies as the court may direct. . . . The evidence thus transcribed shall be designated as the 'Transcript of the Evidence', shall be certified by the stenographer, and shall . . . be regarded as a true record of the evidence." General Laws c. 278, § 31, as amended through St.1974, c. 540, § 1, provides: "(E)xceptions, alleged in any proceedings or trial . . . on request of either party made within twenty days after verdict . . . upon an indictment or complaint for any . . . felony (other than murder or manslaughter) or misdemeanor tried with such felony, shall be governed by sections thirty-three A to thirty-three H, inclusive, and no bill of exceptions shall be entered or considered in the appeals court or in the supreme judicial court in any such proceedings or trial or motion for a new trial." The defendant contends that these statutes require that his appeal be taken on the basis of a transcript and preclude the use of alternative means of presenting an appeal. He therefore argues that the statutes mandate a new trial when the transcript is unavailable.

Concededly, under § 33A, Harris is entitled to have a transcript for his appeal. However, both this section and § 31, which provides that a bill of exceptions may not be considered in cases in which a defendant is entitled to have a transcript for his appeal, contemplate the present availability of a transcript. These statutory provisions are silent concerning the appropriate action to be taken in the event that a transcript is unavailable and do not automatically require a new trial when literal compliance with their provisions is impossible through no fault of either of the parties. See People v. Chessman, 35 Cal.2d 455, 460, 218 P.2d 769, cert. denied, 340 U.S. 840, 71 S.Ct. 29, 95 L.Ed. 616 (1950).

The defendant next contends that, if he is required to appeal without a transcript, he will be denied his rights to meaningful appellate review and to the effective assistance of counsel. However, when a transcript of the evidence is not available, "rough accommodations" in the method in which an appeal is presented are constitutionally permissible. Norvell v. Illinois, 373 U.S. 420, 83 S.Ct. 1366, 10 L.Ed.2d 456 (1963). See Pisani v. Warden, D.C., 289 F.Supp. 232 (1968). And alternative methods of reporting the trial proceedings, such as a statement of agreed facts, a bill of exceptions, or a narrative statement based on the judge's notes, are constitutionally adequate if they bring before the appellate court an account of the events sufficient to allow it to evaluate the defendant's contentions. Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 92 S.Ct. 431, 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971). Mayer v. Chicago, 404 U.S. 189, 194-195, 92 S.Ct. 410, 30 L.Ed.2d 372 (1971). Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487, 495-496, 83 S.Ct. 774, 9 L.Ed.2d 899 (1963). Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 20, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956). Thus, if the proceedings at trial can be sufficiently reconstructed and presented to the appellate court, a new trial is not constitutionally required when the transcript is not available through no fault of the parties. See Britt v. North Carolina, supra. See also State v. Hart, 110 Ariz. 55, 514 P.2d 1243 (1973); Yancey v. State, 267 So.2d 836 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1972); State v. Jefferson, 204 Kan. 50, 460 P.2d 610 (1969); State v. Moore, 87 N.M. 412, 534 P.2d 1124 (1975); People v. Glass, 43 N.Y.2d 283, 401 N.Y.S.2d 189, 372 N.E.2d 24 (1977); People v. Rivera, 39 N.Y.2d 519, 384 N.Y.S.2d 726, 349 N.E.2d 825 (1976); State v. Neely, 21 N.C.App. 439, 204 S.E.2d 531 (1974).

Moreover, the refusal to grant a new trial automatically when the transcript is unavailable is consonant with the approach adopted in our own decisions involving transcripts. Our cases have stressed the importance of a transcript in preparing for and reviewing an appeal, see Blazo v. Superior Court, 366 Mass. 141, 149, 315 N.E.2d 857 (1974); Commonwealth v. Shea, 356 Mass. 358, 361, 252 N.E.2d 336 (1969), and we hold today, see Charpentier v. Commonwealth, --- Mass. --- A, 379 N.E.2d 1067 (1978), that in a case subject to G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33H, an indigent is entitled to a complete, rather than a partial, transcript when that transcript is available. However, we have not automatically granted a new trial simply because the transcript was not available. 3 Rather, when portions of a transcript were unavailable, we reviewed the evidence to determine whether the portions of the transcript which were available were sufficient to evaluate the defendant's contentions, see Commonwealth v. Kudish, 362 Mass. 627, 632, 289 N.E.2d 856 (1972), and, when the whole transcript was unavailable, we reviewed the defendant's claims on the basis of a reconstructed record, see Commonwealth v. Nolin, --- Mass. --- B, 364 N.E.2d 1224 (1977). We now explicitly decide that the fact that the transcript is unavailable through no fault of the parties does not warrant a new trial unless the trial proceedings cannot be reconstructed sufficiently to present the defendant's claims. Such a resolution of the unavailability problem provides a proper accommodation between the right of the defendant to a meaningful appeal and the right of the Commonwealth to rely on the jury verdict until such time as that verdict might be found to be tainted by legal error.

The defendant argues further that reconstruction of the events at trial is impossible. However, no attempt has been made to reconstruct the proceedings, and the defendant has not presented any facts which would demonstrate that such an attempt would have no hope of success. See People v. Glass, 43 N.Y.2d 283, 401 N.Y.S.2d 189, 372 N.E.2d 24 (1977). Cf. People v. Rivera, 39 N.Y.2d 519, 384 N.Y.S.2d 726, 349 N.E.2d 825 (1976). The trial occurred only one and one-half years ago. We are informed that the trial judge, defense counsel, the prosecutor, and all the major witnesses are presently available to assist in reconstructing the record. The exhibits introduced at trial are available. The Commonwealth has in its files a list of witnesses, a summary of the prosecutor's closing argument, and a summary of the testimony. Defense counsel's files may contain additional evidence. Where, as here, there exists no compelling reason why reconstruction would not be feasible, an attempt to reconstruct the events at trial must be made. See State v. Hart, 110 Ariz. 55, 514 P.2d 1243 (1973); Yancey v. State, 267 So.2d 836 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1972); State v. Jefferson, 204 Kan. 50, 460 P.2d 610 (1969); State v. Moore, 87 N.M. 412, 534 P.2d 1124 (1975); Whetton v. Turner, 28 Utah 2d 47, 497 P.2d 856 (1972), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 862, 94 S.Ct. 81, 38 L.Ed.2d 112 (1973).

Therefore a hearing should be held in the Superior Court to attempt to reconstruct the proceedings sufficiently to present any claims of the defendant. At this hearing all evidence and testimony relevant to reconstructing the events at trial should be received. All those with such relevant evidence, but particularly the attorneys involved at the trial, are under an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
58 cases
  • Com. v. Imbert, SJC–10222
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • May 18, 2018
    ...adequate substitute. We disagree. The reconstruction was adequate and conforms to the procedure established in Commonwealth v. Harris, 376 Mass. 74, 78–80, 379 N.E.2d 1073 (1978). It is well established that a defendant is entitled to a "record of sufficient completeness to permit proper co......
  • State v. DePastino, 14695
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • February 22, 1994
    ...of witnesses. See, e.g., id., at 104-105, 629 A.2d 402 (proceedings of one afternoon of trial missing); Commonwealth v. Harris, 376 Mass. 74, 78-79, 379 N.E.2d 1073 (1978) (entire transcript missing); People v. King, 160 A.D.2d 531, 532, 554 N.Y.S.2d 517, appeal denied, 76 N.Y.2d 847, 559 N......
  • State v. Williams, 13917
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • August 10, 1993
    ......Stafford, . Page 405 . 223 Kan. 62, 64, 573 P.2d 970 (1977); Smith v. State, 291 Md. 125, 137, 433 A.2d 1143 (1981); Commonwealth v. Harris, 376 Mass. 74, 77, 379 N.E.2d 1073 (1978); Lopez v. State, 105 Nev. 68, 76, 769 P.2d 1276 (1989); People v. Glass, 43 N.Y.2d 283, 286-87, 401 ......
  • State v. Vitale
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 31, 1983
    ...v. Stafford, 223 Kan. 62, 64, 573 P.2d 970 (1977); Smith v. State, 291 Md. 125, 137, 433 A.2d 1143 (1981); Commonwealth v. Harris, 376 Mass. 74, 77-79, 379 N.E.2d 1073 (1978); People v. Glass, 43 N.Y.2d 283, 286-87, 401 N.Y.S.2d 189, 372 N.E.2d 24 (1977). Although an available transcript mu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT