State v. Hart
| Decision Date | 25 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 2139--2,2139--2 |
| Citation | 110 Ariz. 55,514 P.2d 1243 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Charles Edward HART, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Cleon M. Duke, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender, by Anne Kappes, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
This is a delayed appeal from a jury verdict and judgment of guilt to the crime of murder in the first degree, §§ 13--451, 13--452 A.R.S., and a sentence of life imprisonment, § 13--453 A.R.S.
Although the defendant raises other questions on appeal, it is necessary to answer only one question and that is: Limited to the record in the instant case, will the fact that a transcript of defendant's trial is unavailable require this court to set aside the judgment and order a new trial?
The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. On 18 April 1961 the defendant was found guilty by a jury of first degree murder with a recommendation that he serve a term of life imprisonment in the Arizona State Prison. At the time of his sentence the defendant was 20 years of age and had no prior felony convictions. The murder occurred during the course of a robbery of a bar in Phoenix, Arizona.
On 21 February 1966 the defendant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Pinal County which application was denied without hearing. Thereafter the defendant sought relief in the trial and appellate courts of the State of Arizona and the Federal District Court. Finally the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 22 March 1972 in Hart v. Eyman, 458 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1972), cert. Den. (1972), 407 U.S. 916, 92 S.Ct. 2441, 32 L.Ed.2d 691, upheld an order of the Federal District Court for the District of Arizona which gave the State the alternatives of (1) holding the necessary hearings in the State court for the creation of a reasonable substitute for a trial transcript, (2) granting petitioner a delayed appeal in the State courts, (3) releasing him from custody, or (4) setting aside his conviction and retrying him. For a more detailed description of the facts leading up to that decision as well as the rather dismal record of the State of Arizona in this matter, we refer to the opinion in Hart v. Eyman, supra.
As a result of the order of the federal court, this court, on 19 May 1972, upon motion of the Attorney General of the State of Arizona, ordered a delayed appeal granted to the defendant Charles Edward Hart. Thereafter on 13 September 1972 this court ordered a hearing on the question of the availability of the record on appeal and on 10 October 1972 the Superior Court, after hearing, found as follows:
'The court further finds that the following documents and papers are not available:
(2--c) Reporter's transcript of preliminary hearing.
(2--e) Reporter's transcript of trial proceedings.
(2--f) Report of the probation officer or presentence report.
'The court further finds that the foregoing matters which are not available are such due to the fact that the reporter's notes have not and cannot be located, after diligent search, and that, therefore, a transcript of the proceedings reported in those notes cannot be prepared.'
The State contends that the record in the instant case may be cured by holding a hearing pursuant to Norvell v. Illinois, 373 U.S. 420, 83 S.Ct. 1366, 10 L.Ed.2d 456 (1963) and Rule 363, Rules of Criminal Procedure (1956), 17 A.R.S. We disagree.
We believe that a hearing to reconstruct a transcript of the trial at this late date would not be productive of anything helpful to this court. The trial judge who tried the matter is no longer alive, and while it may be possible to remember the events that led to the conviction, it is doubtful the attorneys and the witnesses could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Harris
...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, ......
-
State v. Miller
...the verdict. We have previously recognized that in some situations, lengthy delay necessitates a new trial. See, e.g., State v. Hart, 110 Ariz. 55, 514 P.2d 1243 (1973) (twelve-year delay and death of trial judge made a new trial necessary, as a hearing to reconstruct the transcript would h......
-
State v. Perry
...establishes that available methods for reconstructing the record are inadequate: Annot., 107 A.L.R. 603 (1937); State v. Hart, 110 Ariz. 55, 514 P.2d 1243, 1245 (1973); People v. Apalatequi, 82 Cal.App.3d 970, 147 Cal.Rptr. 473, 475 (1978); State v. Vitale, 190 Conn. 219, 460 A.2d 961, 965 ......
-
State ex rel. Kisner v. Fox
...24 (1977); State v. Moore, 87 N.M. 412, 534 P.2d 1124 (1975); State v. Neely, 21 N.C.App. 439, 204 S.E.2d 531 (1974); State v. Hart, 110 Ariz. 55, 514 P.2d 1243 (1973); 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); and......