People v. West
| Decision Date | 21 October 1971 |
| Citation | 29 N.Y.2d 728,326 N.Y.S.2d 388,276 N.E.2d 226 |
| Parties | , 276 N.E.2d 226 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Harold WEST, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Eugene Feldman, and Anne Gross Feldman, New York City, for appellant.
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. (David Otis Fuller, Jr., and Michael R. Juviler, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered. The right of indigent defendants to a free transcript of a pretrial suppression hearing is a fundamental constitutional right and a copy is to be made available to the defendant for whatever purpose he, and not the court, may deem relevant and necessary to his defense. Here the Huntley hearing, involving the testimony of only one witness, occupied the Friday afternoon preceding commencement of trial, some six days prior to the calling of that witness. Under the circumstances the request for a transcript cannot be equated with a request for a daily transcript of trial minutes or a request made on the eve of trial. Regardless of the nature and quantum of proof against the defendant, its denial requires a reversal (People v. Zabrocky, 26 N.Y.2d 530, 536, 311 N.Y.S.2d 892, 260 N.E.2d 529, and cases cited therein).
The constitutional right of an indigent defendant to the minutes of a pretrial hearing derives from the Equal Protection Clause (People ex rel. Cadogan v. McMann, 24 N.Y.2d 233, 235--236, 299 N.Y.S.2d 617, 247 N.E.2d 492). Hence, the right is a relative one dependent upon the availability of daily minutes to a defendant who is not indigent. Unless it can be said that any defendant may be entitled without exception to an adjournment of an impending trial in order to obtain hearing minutes, an indigent defendant should not be entitled to a greater right. The request in this case was made and denied without intervening court days, and, therefore, while the testimony at the brief suppression hearing was fresh in the minds of defendant, and, more important, of his counsel. Under the circumstances of this case to require the hearing minutes on the next court day is the equivalent of requiring daily minutes. People v. Zabrocky (26 N.Y.2d 530, 311 N.Y.S.2d 892, 260 N.E.2d 529) held that this was not necessary.
True, the Zabrocky case (supra) held that it is not necessary to show prejudice in order to be entitled to minutes on timely demand. If the extraordinary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Perez
... ... (People v. Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 86, 90-91 [255 N.Y.S.2d 850, 209 N.E.2d 694]; People v. Paige, 48 A.D.2d 6 [367 N.Y.S.2d 350]; cf. People v. Zabrocky, 26 N.Y.2d 530, 536-537 [311 N.Y.S.2d 892, 260 N.E.2d 529]; People v. West, 29 N.Y.2d 728 [326 N.Y.S.2d 388, 276 N.E.2d 226]; People v. Peacock, 31 N.Y.2d 907 [340 N.Y.S.2d 642, 292 N.E.2d 785]; People v. Sanders 31 N.Y.2d 463 [341 N.Y.S.2d 305, 293 N.E.2d 555].) We thus reject arguments that consideration of the significance of the content or substance of a witness' ... ...
-
People v. Marks
... ... 43 Id. at 1095, 378 N.Y.S.2d 559 ... 44 People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881 (1961) ... 45 Lunney, supra; Aviles, supra; Churba, supra; cf. People v. Zabrocky, 26 N.Y.2d 530, 311 N.Y.S.2d 892, 260 N.E.2d 529 (1970); People v. West, 29 N.Y.2d 728, 326 N.Y.S.2d 388, 276 N.E.2d 226 (1971); ... ...
-
People v. Caban
...free transcript of the pre-trial hearing (People v. Montgomery, 18 N.Y.2d 993, 278 N.Y.S.2d 226, 224 N.E.2d 730; People v. West, 29 N.Y.2d 728, 326 N.Y.S.2d 388, 276 N.E.2d 226; People v. Zabrocky, 26 N.Y.2d 530, 311 N.Y.S.2d 892, 260 N.E.2d 529; Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1......
-
People v. Aviles
... ... In dismissing the indictment, and in support of its position that a 'fundamental constitutional right' was involve the court cited a number of decisions by the New York Court of Appeals: People v. Zabrocky, 26 N.Y.2d 530, 311 N.Y.S.2d 892, 260 N.E.2d 529; People v. West, 29 N.Y.2d 728, 326 N.Y.S.2d 388, 276 N.E.2d 226; and People v. Peacock, 31 N.Y.2d 907, 340 N.Y.S.2d 642, 292 N.E.2d 785. Yet, in my view, the court in Hairston misconstrued the nature of the 'fundamental constitutional right' to which our highest court referred in the above and other cases ... ...