People v. Miller
| Decision Date | 01 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 39457,39457 |
| Citation | 35 Ill.2d 615,221 N.E.2d 653 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Albert L. MILLER, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Thomas K. Peterson, Chicago, appointed by the Court, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, State's Atty., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and E. James Gildea, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for defendant in error.
In 1963 the defendant, Albert Miller, and Harold Delafosse were tried by jury in the criminal court of Cook County and convicted of the crime of armed robbery. The defendant was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than 10 nor more than 15 years and a writ of error has been issued to review the judgment of conviction.
Prior to the trial which resulted in the verdict and judgment of guilty, the cause was set for trial on two occasions. At the first trial a mistrial was declared before the jury had been sworn and on the second occasion a mistrial was declared after the evidence had been heard and the cause had been submitted to the jury. Prior to the third trial the defendant filed a petition seeking a transcript of the proceedings at the former trials. This petition, filed by appointed counsel, alleged that the defendant had previously been found to be a pauper and was unable to pay for the services of counsel and also unable to pay for a transcript of the former proceedings. It was also alleged that testimony of witnesses called on behalf of the State was in conflict between the first and second trials and that it was necessary for a proper defense to obtain the transcript. This petition was denied. When the cause came on for trial the third time counsel pointed out to the court that a previous motion for a copy of the transcript of the first trial had been denied by the court, but that it had just come to counsel's attention that the State had in its possession a stengraphic transcript of the defendant's testimony at the second trial. Counsel asked that he be permitted to examine this transcript. Over the prosecutor's objection counsel was permitted to examine the transcript of the defendant's testimony.
During the course of the trial, on cross-examination of the main prosecution witness, counsel for the defendant brought out that the witness had testified at the previous trial. He was asked whether in his previous testimony he had stated that the robbery took place on September 17 instead of September 18. The prosecutor objected, stating that defense counsel apparently had a transcript of the former proceedings in his hand and that the proper method would be to read the former testimony to the witness and ask him whether he gave such testimony at the former trial. The court sustained the objection, remarking that the defendant had the transcript. Defense counsel then stated that he did not have the witness's full testimony and reminded the court that a previous ruling had denied him the complete transcript of the former trial. Further attempts to impeach this witness were unavailing since counsel for the defendant was unable to prove the prior testimony of the witness. It is claimed that the denial of the motion for the transcript deprived the defendant of due process of law and the equal protection of the laws. Specifically defendant complains that he was denied the right to avail himself of statutory procedures to obtain a transcript of his prior trial because of his indigency.
The defendant's contention is based primarily upon Griffin v. People v. State of Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891. In that case the Supreme Court held that since Illinois had established a system of appellate review the right to effective review could not be denied a defendant solely because the defendant was indigent. The court held that Illinois must provide indigent defendants with a transcript or a bill of exceptions without cost, so that a reviewing court would be able to give such defendants the same full review as it afforded those who were able to pay for a transcript of the proceedings at their trial. Although Griffin was limited to the problem of providing effective appellate review to indigent persons, we believe that the rationale of the case compels the conclusion that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ballott
...... (See People v. Montgomery, 18 N.Y.2d 993, 278 N.Y.S.2d 226, 224 N.E.2d 730; People v. Jaglom, 17 N.Y.2d 162, 165, 269 N.Y.S.2d 405, 407, 216 N.E.2d 576, 578; Williams v. United States, 358 F.2d 325 (9th Cir.); Peterson v. United States, 351 F.2d 606 (9th Cir.); People v. Miller, 35 Ill.2d 615, 221 N.E.2d 653.) Although the defendant did not at the trial expressly claim indigency and demand that the prosecution provide him with the minutes, it was evident that he was then financially unable to obtain them. Since this inability resulted in a deprivation of a substantial ......
-
People v. Hargis
...... The defendant further argues that since he was indigent, the error is one of constitutional proportions. . Both People v. Delafosse (1967), 36 Ill.2d 327, 223 N.E.2d 125, and People v. Miller (1966), 35 Ill.2d 615, 221 N.E.2d 653, hold it to be a violation of due process and equal protection to deny an indigent defendant the transcripts of prior trials involving the same defendant on the same charges. The instant case involves a sentencing hearing rather than a trial. The case also ......
-
People v. Bynum
...... Thus, while we do not wish to diminish the value of trial transcripts (see, e.g., United States v. Jonas (7th Cir. 1976), 540 F.2d 566; People v. Miller (1966), 35 Ill.2d 615, 221 N.E.2d 653; People v. Russell (1972), 7 Ill.App.3d 850, 289 N.E.2d 106), we do not believe that the failure of Bynum's counsel to request the pre-trial transcripts proves incompetency under the facts presented in the case at bar. Nor do we find that the ......
-
People v. Telio
...... People v. Holiday, 47 Ill.2d 300, 265 N.E.2d 634. It has been held that denial [1 Ill.App.3d 530] to an indigent defendant of a transcript of prior mistrials is a deprival of equal protection of the laws. People v. Miller, 35 Ill.2d 615, 221 N.E.2d 653. And without elevating the claim to a constitutional level, the Supreme Court has said that after a proper showing of its existence and pertinency, it is reversible error to deny a defendant use of a grand jury transcript which he needs for the impeachment of a ......