People v. Montgomery
| Decision Date | 30 December 1966 |
| Parties | , 224 N.E.2d 730 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Brewster Lee MONTGOMERY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Gretchen White Oberman and Anthony F. Marra, New York City, for appellant.
Nat H. Hentel, Dist. Atty. (Benj. J. Jacobson, Jackson Heights, of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment reversed and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for new trial. The State is to make available to defendant a transcript of the preliminary hearing.
When the State constitutionally or statutorily affords a defendant a right, the exercise thereof cannot be conditioned upon the defendant's ability to pay (People v. Hughes, 15 N.Y.2d 172, 256 N.Y.S.2d 803, 204 N.E.2d 849; People v. Pride, 3 N.Y.2d 545, 170 N.Y.S.2d 321, 147 N.E.2d 716; Long v. District Ct. of Iowa, 385 U.S. 192, 87 S.Ct. 362, 17 L.Ed.2d 290; Lane v. Brown, 372 U.S. 477, 83 S.Ct. 768, 9 L.Ed.2d 892; Douglas v. People of State of California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799; Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891). Section 206 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that, where a preliminary examination was held and testimony recorded, the Magistrate or his clerk must, 'on payment of his fees', within two days after demand, furnish the defendant or his attorney a copy of the statement taken at the hearing. There is no doubt that section 206 affords one who is capable of paying for it an absolute right to a transcript of the preliminary hearing. Thus, the State cannot, consonant with the equal protection clause of the State and Federal Constitutions, deny a defendant prior to trial, access to a transcript of a preliminary hearing because of his inability to pay (cf. People v. Jaglom, 17 N.Y.2d 162, 165, 269 N.Y.S.2d 405, 407, 216 N.E.2d 576, 578). We hold, therefore, that when a defendant requests a transcript and when that request is accompanied by an affidavit of indigency, the State must honor that request. We add one caveat. The request for a transcript should 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.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hansen v. State, 89-DP-0823
... ... See also, United States ex rel. Moore v. People of Illinois, 577 F.2d 411 (7th Cir.1978) (error in failure to provide transcript of the preliminary hearing in which an allegedly suggestive ... Lewis, 215 N.W.2d 293, 295 (Iowa 1974); Hawkins v. State, 486 P.2d 743 (Okla.Crim.App.1971); People v. Montgomery, 18 N.Y.2d 993, 224 N.E.2d 730, 278 N.Y.S.2d 226 (1966) ... All of this would seem to call into serious question this Court's ... ...
-
Britt v. North Carolina 8212 5041
... ... 214, 78 S.Ct. 1061, 2 L.Ed.2d 1269 (1958); Ross v. Schneckloth, 357 U.S. 575, 78 S.Ct. 1387, 2 L.Ed.2d 1547 (1958); People v. Montgomery, 18 N.Y.2d 993, 278 N.Y.S.2d 226, 224 N.E.2d 730 (1966). An indigent's right to a transcript of grand jury testimony in the federal ... ...
-
Jeffreys v. Jeffreys
... ... See also People ex rel. King v. McNeil, 30 Misc.2d 566, 219 N.Y.S.2d 118 ... The category of expenses payable by litigants to third persons other ... 891 (1956), (discussed in Part II), which made payment of certain auxiliary expenses a matter of constitutional necessity (see People v. Montgomery, 18 N.Y.2d 993, 278 N.Y.S.2d 226, 224 N.E.2d 730), it is significant that whenever public funds for the assistance of indigent criminal defendants ... ...
-
People v. Carroll
... ... Defendant argues that because he feared impeachment, denial of his motion enabled the prosecution to intimidate him into not testifying in his defense. To support his contention, defendant relies on People v. Montgomery, 47 Ill.2d 510, 268 ... N.E.2d 695, a January 1971 decision in which our Supreme Court held that evidence of a prior conviction should not be permitted for purposes of impeachment if a period of more than 10 years has elapsed since the conviction or since release of the witness from confinement, ... ...