State v. Robinson
| Citation | 387 So.2d 1143 |
| Decision Date | 23 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 66111,66111 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Louisiana |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Claude ROBINSON, Darryl W. Hampton & George Washington Jr. |
Jack Quarles, Gretna, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Mamoulides, Dist. Atty., Abbott J. Reeves, Clarence E. McManus, Shirley Wimberly, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiffs-appellees.
The key issue in this appeal is whether the court reporter's inability to provide defendant with a transcript on appeal of the trial testimony of two expert witnesses (a state witness and a defense witness) requires that the matter be retried.
After a jury trial lasting several days defendants were convicted of attempted aggravated rape of a fellow inmate in the Jefferson Parish prison. The victim's testimony describing the incident was corroborated by physical evidence, including a tear in the internal sphincter of the rectum and seminal fluid found in the underwear of the victim and of two of the defendants.
At trial the court reporter recorded the voir dire examination of jurors, the opening and closing arguments, and the testimony of all the witnesses, including counsels' objections. Defendants' trial counsel designated the entire record and transcript of testimony as necessary for review of the contentions of error for purposes of appeal.
La. Const. 1974, Art. 1, § 19 provides that the review under an appeal of right from a felony conviction (accorded by Art. 5, § 5(D)(2)) shall be "based upon a complete record of all evidence upon which the judgment is based". The Supreme Court of the United States has also recognized the right to a complete transcript of the trial proceedings, particularly when (as here) counsel on appeal was not counsel at the trial. Hardy v. United States, 375 U.S. 277, 84 S.Ct. 424, 11 L.Ed.2d 331 (1964).
The purpose of the constitutional and codal (C.Cr.P. art. 843) requirement of recording all proceedings in felony cases is to make it possible for a party to support assignments of error on appellate review. When a portion of the trial has not been recorded, a party cannot perfect assignments of error which occurred during that portion of the trial, and the appellate court cannot review any such errors pursuant to C.Cr.P. art. 920 in order to insure that the trial was properly conducted. State v. Ford, 338 So.2d 107 (La.1976).
The Ford decision noted that a retrial may not be necessary if there is only a slight inaccuracy or an inconsequential omission in the record. The record...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Alridge
...trial bearing on the merits of an appeal will require reversal." Id. , 99–0553, p. 20–21, 803 So.2d at 19–20 (citing State v. Robinson , 387 So.2d 1143 (La. 1980) (finding omissions material as substantial portions of the record were missing, including the testimony of four state witnesses,......
-
State v. Norah, 2012–KA–1194.
...for appellate review and we can review for errors patent on the face of the record pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art 920. See State v. Robinson, 387 So.2d 1143, 1144 (La.1980). See also State v. Pierce, 11–0095, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/31/11), 89 So.3d 1, 3 (citing Ford, 338 So.2d at 110) (“Without......
-
State v. Hoffman
....... Material omissions from the transcript of the proceedings at trial bearing on the merits of an appeal will require reversal. See State v. Robinson, 387 So.2d 1143 (La.1980) (reversal required when record failed to contain the testimony of a State and defense expert witness); State v. Ford, 338 So.2d 107 (La.1976) (reversal required when record missing the testimony of four State witnesses and the voir dire of prospective jurors). On the ......
-
State v. Frank
...... See State v. Robinson, 387 So.2d 1143 (La.1980) (reversal required when record failed to contain the testimony of a state and defense expert witness); State v. Ford, 338 So.2d 107 (La.1976) (reversal required when record was missing 803 So.2d 20 the testimony of four state witnesses and the voir dire of ......
-
A Constitutional Right to an Appeal: Guarding Against Unacceptable Risks of Erroneous Conviction
...2d 1243 (La. 1980). 141. See, e.g., Delap v. State, 350 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1977), cert. denied, 104 S. Ct. 3559 (1984); State v. Robinson, 387 So. 2d 1143 (La. 1980); State v. Jones, 351 So. 2d 1194 (La. 1977); State v. Ford, 338 So. 2d 107 (La. 1976); State v. Bizette, 334 So. 2d 392 (La. 19......