People v. Montgomery

224 N.E.2d 730, 18 N.Y.2d 993, 278 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 912
New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 30, 1966·Published·Cited by 31 cases

Opinion

Memorandum. Judgment reversed and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for new trial. The State is to make available to defendant a transcript of the preliminary hearing.

When the State constitutionally or statutorily affords a defendant a right, the exercise thereof cannot be conditioned upon the defendant’s ability to pay (People v. Hughes, 15 N Y 2d 172; People v. Pride, 3 N Y 2d 545; Long v. District Ct. of Iowa, 358 U. S. 192; Lane v. Brown, 372 U. S. 477; Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335; Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12). Section 206 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that, where a preliminary examination was held and testimony recorded, the Magistrate or his clerk must, on payment of his fees ”, within two days after demand, furnish the defendant or his attorney a copy of the statement taken at the hearing. There is no doubt that section 206 affords one who is capable of paying for it an absolute right to a transcript of the preliminary hearing. Thus, the State cannot, consonant with the equal protection clause of the State and Federal Constitutions, deny a defendant, prior to trial, access to a transcript of a preliminary hearing because of his inability to pay (cf. People v. Jaglom, 17 N Y 2d 162, 165). We hold, therefore, that when a defendant requests a transcript and when that request is accompanied by an affidavit of indi-gency, the State must honor that request. We add one caveat. The request for a transcript should be made far enough in [995]*995advance of trial to give the State a reasonable amount of time to transcribe the minutes and to avoid the necessity of suspending the trial pending the production of the transcript.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Fuld, Van VooRhis, Busks, Scileppi, Bergan and Keating concur.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People v. Montgomery, 224 N.E.2d 730, 18 N.Y.2d 993, 278 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 912 (N.Y. 1966).

224 N.E.2d 730 (People v. Montgomery) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Gill
40 Misc. 3d 246 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 2013)
People v. Ulloa
1 A.D.2d 468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Hansen v. State
592 So. 2d 114 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1991)
People v. Yanowitch
140 Misc. 2d 575 (New York County Courts, 1988)
People v. Williams
122 A.D.2d 901 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Frank
107 A.D.2d 1057 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People v. Caban
123 Misc. 2d 943 (New York Supreme Court, 1984)
People v. Powell
101 Misc. 2d 315 (New York County Courts, 1979)
United States Ex Rel. Gilliard v. LaVallee
376 F. Supp. 205 (S.D. New York, 1974)
State v. Sanchez
519 P.2d 304 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1974)
People v. Carroll
299 N.E.2d 134 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1973)
Goudeau v. State
1973 OK CR 209 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1973)
Commonwealth v. Britt
285 N.E.2d 780 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1972)
State v. Johnson
260 So. 2d 645 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1972)
Britt v. North Carolina
404 U.S. 226 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Cook v. State
1971 OK CR 273 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1971)
United States ex rel. Williams v. Zelker
445 F.2d 451 (Second Circuit, 1971)
United States v. Zelker
445 F.2d 451 (Second Circuit, 1971)