Young v. Com., 770819
Decision Date | 03 March 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 770819,770819 |
Citation | 241 S.E.2d 797,218 Va. 885 |
Parties | Russell S. YOUNG, Jr. v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Ronald E. Barrett, Alexandria, on brief, for plaintiff in error.
Anthony F. Troy, Atty. Gen., Vera S. Warthen, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief, for defendant in error.
Before I'ANSON, C. J., and CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN and COMPTON, JJ.
Russell S. Young, Jr. (defendant), who waived trial by jury, was convicted by the trial court of rape, abduction and assault and battery. The court imposed sentences totaling eight years in the penitentiary and 12 months in jail, with the jail sentence to run concurrently with the penitentiary sentence.
This appeal presents a narrow issue. Prior to defendant's preliminary hearing before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court of the City of Alexandria, his counsel was advised by the clerk of that court that defendant's preliminary hearing would be recorded by electronic recording equipment operated by court personnel. Counsel was also told that a transcript of the proceedings would be available to the defendant. Several days after the hearing, it was discovered that no transcript could be made because the recording equipment had malfunctioned.
Defendant was indicted by a grand jury in the circuit court. Subsequent to his indictment, defendant's counsel filed alternative motions to dismiss the indictment or to grant defendant a new preliminary hearing, arguing that the lack of a transcript impaired his ability to defend himself, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The sole issue then is whether the trial court erred on constitutional grounds in denying defendant's motion.
While conceding that the cases upon which he relies "have to do with an indigent's right to a transcript", defendant nevertheless would have us, under the circumstances of this case, extend those cases and hold that an inadvertent failure to record the preliminary hearing was a denial of equal protection. This we decline to do.
Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 194, 19 L.Ed.2d 41 (1967), holds that if a criminal defendant, upon the payment of a fee, can secure a transcript of his preliminary hearing, an indigent defendant cannot under the Equal Protection Clause be denied a like right merely because he is unable to pay the fee for the transcript. It should be noted that this case originated in New York which had a statute providing that a transcript of the preliminary hearing would be furnished "on payment of . . . fees at the rate of five cents for every hundred words." N.Y.Code Crim.Proc. § 206.
Roberts and related cases "establish the principle that the State must, as a matter of equal protection, provide indigent prisoners with the basic tools of an adequate defense or appeal, when those tools are available for a price to other prisoners." Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227, 92 S.Ct. 431, 433, 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971).
In Faison v. Zahradnick, 563 F.2d 1135 (4th Cir. 1977), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had occasion to apply the principles of Roberts in a habeas corpus proceeding challenging a conviction under Virginia law. There the Court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dickerson v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0918-00-2.
...those tools are available for a price to other prisoners." Id. at 227, 92 S.Ct. at 433 emphasis added); see Young v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 885, 888, 241 S.E.2d 797, 798-99 (1978) (the Court held that where the transcript of the preliminary hearing was not available to any defendant, indigen......
-
Anderson v. Com., 0180-93-2
...or appeal." Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227, 92 S.Ct. 431, 433, 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971); accord Young v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 885, 886-87, 241 S.E.2d 797, 798 (1978). In determining whether a defendant needs a free transcript, two factors are relevant: "(1) the value of the transc......
-
Braxton v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0815-18-2
...recording equipment, "would not be available to any defendant, indigent or not." Dickerson, 36 Va. App. at 14. See also Young v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 885, 888 (1978) ("Regardless of the defendant's affluence or indigency, there was no way that a transcript of the preliminary hearing could ......