State v. Reddick

• Decision Date: 16 January 1953
• Citation: State v. Reddick, 139 Conn. 398, 94 A.2d 613 (Conn. 1953)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. REDDICK. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 613

94 A.2d 613

139 Conn. 398

STATE v. REDDICK.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 16, 1953.

Howard A. Jacobs, New Haven, with whom was Stanley A. Jacobs, New Haven, for defendant.

Abraham S. Ullman, State's Atty., New Haven, for the State.

Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.

INGLIS, Associate Justice.

The defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree with a recommendation for clemency and thereupon was sentenced to imprisonment for life pursuant to § 1406b of the 1951 Cumulative Supplement to the General Statutes. His motion to set aside the verdict was denied and he has filed an appeal. He filed a motion in the trial court alleging that he was without funds and seeking an order that the court fees chargeable to him on the appeal and the expense of procuring a transcript of the testimony and printing his brief and appendix and paid by the state. The trial court denied the motion without memorandum and the defendant now has filed a motion in this court for the modification of that order.

This motion is made pursuant to Practice Book, § 435, which was adopted in 1951. If under our practice prior to that time error had been found in the court's denial of the motion, we would only have remanded it with a direction as to the proper action to be taken by the trial court. State v. Zukauskas, 132 Conn. 450, 452 note, 45 A.2d 289; State v. Klein, 95 Conn. 451, 453, 112 A. 524. The question, therefore, is whether under the new rule this court is authorized to enter an order superseding the trial court's denial of the motion.

Section 435 provides: 'The supervision and control of the proceedings on appeal shall be in [the Supreme Court] from the time the appeal is filed and * * * any motion the purpose of which is to perfect the record for presentation to this court shall be made to it. This court may, on written motion stating the grounds for the relief sought and after hearing, modify or vacate any order made by the trial court in relation to the prosecution of the appeal * * *.' Clearly, the purpose of the rule is to furnish a means whereby this court may act expeditiously on any question which may arise in connection with the preparation of the record on appeal. Whether an impecunious defendant in a criminal case shall be furnished with the funds necessary to meet the expense of preparing the record is such a question. The motion now before us therefore falls within the rule, and under it we are empowered to supersede the order entered by the trial court in so far as we conclude that such a modification is requisite under the circumstances.

The motion before us differs from that passed upon by the trial court in that it asks only for an allowance to cover the expenses of procuring the transcript and printing the brief and appendix, whereas the one addressed to the trial court prayed, in addition, for an allowance to cover all court fees which the defendant would become obligated to pay. The trial court is without power to except even an impoverished accused from the payment of the court fees prescribed by statute or to bring about the same result by ordering reimbursement for such payment....