Title: State v. Sage

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

ENTRY_ORDER.92-204; 161 Vt. 633; 641 A.2d 115

[Filed 23-Mar-1994]

                                ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 92-204

                             MARCH TERM, 1994


State of Vermont                  }          APPEALED FROM:
                                  }
                                  }
     v.                           }          District Court of Vermont,
                                  }          Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
                                  }
Bernard Sage                      }
                                  }          DOCKET NO. 4499-9-90Cncr


             In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

     Defendant, Bernard Sage, who was convicted of failing to file tax
returns and of operating a restaurant without a rooms and meals license,
moves for summary reversal of his conviction because the stenographic notes
for one day of the three-day trial are missing and thus no transcript of
that day can be produced.  We deny appellant's motion, and remand for
further action in the district court.

     We first note that the record available to us does not support
defendant's claim that the transcript was "duly ordered."  While there is
some indication that defendant attempted to order transcripts shortly after
the trial in the fall of 1991, this Court has no record of a transcript
order before May 1992, when defendant was directed to file a docketing
statement and transcript order.  Apparently, defendant failed to pay the
required deposit, however, and another entry order requiring a proper
transcript order and deposit was issued in October 1992.  Eventually, the
public defender entered an appearance for defendant, who was represented by
private counsel at trial, and a transcript order was filed in February 1993.
Thus, while it is not clear that the notes would have been available
assuming defendant had properly ordered the necessary transcripts, it
appears that defendant is not blameless regarding the year-long delay in
completing the record.

     Even if we were to assume that the notes would not have been available
had defendant ordered the transcript in a timely manner, however, neither
due process nor equal protection requires reversal and a new trial in every
case in which the transcript is lost.  See United States v. Malady, 960 F.2d 57, 59 (8th Cir. 1992) (lack of complete transcript does not necessarily
require reversal); Bransford v. Brown, 806 F.2d 83, 85-86 (6th Cir. 1986)
(citing other courts for proposition that failure to produce transcript is
not per se constitutional violation, and holding that where appellate
attorney had opportunity to communicate with trial counsel, absence of jury



instruction transcripts was not per se denial of due process right to fair
trial), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1056 (1987); State v. Hart,