Title: State v. Owen

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

97 Ariz. 250 (1965) 399 P.2d 660 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Oliver Brindley OWEN, Appellant. No. 1434. Supreme Court of Arizona. En Banc. March 11, 1965. Robert W. Pickrell, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Norman E. Green, Pima County Atty., Richard L. McAnally, Deputy County Atty., Tucson, for appellee. Richard F. Harless, Phoenix, for appellant. McFARLAND, Justice: This is an appeal by appellant, hereafter designated as defendant, from an order of the Superior Court of Pima County denying the application of defendant for a transcript of reporter's notes, under provisions of A.R.S. 13-1714, and Rule 361B, 17 A.R.S. Defendant was convicted on the 3d day of October 1963 on three counts arson in the first degree, arson with intent to defraud insurer, and conspiracy and thereafter, on the 13th day of December 1963, defendant filed his notice of appeal. On the same day he filed the following affidavit: The State of Arizona filed a request for examination of defendant, pursuant to Rule 361B, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and hearing was held January 3, 1964, pursuant thereto. At the hearing defendant was examined in regard to his ability to pay, and was questioned about money and property which he had had in his possession before the date of the hearing and for a period of time prior thereto, including the source of money which was *252 put up to pay for his bonds. He testified that relatives had put up both the money to pay for the same and the assets required for security. As to a diamond ring which he had shown a deputy county attorney during trial he testified that he had pawned the ring for $500 and spent the money. In regard to money that he had borrowed at the bank with a co-signer sometime before the trial, he stated that he did not have any of it left, and that he still owed the co-signer about $15,000. He also testified that he had spent all the other money that he received as gifts or loans. In regard to money he had used for trips to California he stated that another friend had lent him some $700 which had been spent. He testified that he had spent $150 for retainer fee and costs in lawsuits. As to his property, he had lived in a trailer owned by his mother-in-law, but did so no longer; he had lost his car in a repossession, and was driving a 1955 Ford owned by his mother. Another item of approximately $3,000 received from insurance companies he testified he had spent to fix a car and for living expenses. He was examined in regard to carpeting and furniture for the church which he had purchased about a year and a half before the hearing. He testified that the same had not been paid for. In regard to an organ and piano he stated the organ belonged to his mother-in-law, and the piano belonged to his wife, having been purchased some six years before their marriage, and no value was shown. Defendant repeatedly stated that he had no assets in California, Arizona, or any place. He also stated that he had exhausted his means of borrowing money. For example, in answer to the question, "Do you have friends at this time who will help you?" he answered, "I do not." The court, after taking the matter under advisement, entered the following order: The state, in its brief, contends that defendant had not shown that his wife was without funds to pay for the cost of appeal in that she is the owner of a piano, the value of which is unknown, and because he had been paid some $3,000 for the loss of an automobile, and had been able to raise money to pay for his bonds, and he should be able to raise money to pay for the cost of the appeal. In Riley v. State, 49 Ariz. 123, 65 P.2d 32, an appeal was taken from an order of the court denying an application of defendant for payment for the record and transcript of the reporter's notes under an affidavit and after an examination of defendant *253 as to his ability to pay for same. We held: As we stated in the Riley case, supra, there must be a determination of the ultimate fact as to whether defendant is wholly unable to pay for the record and transcript, and while this falls within the discretion of the court it must be determined from the affidavit and the record as made in the case upon examination or other evidence introduced at that time. The Riley case, supra, went off on the proposition that the court was justified in believing that friends would come to the assistance of defendant. This part of the case we overruled in the case of State v. Vallejos, 87 Ariz. 119, 348 P.2d 554, where we set forth a more liberal ground, following decisions of the United States Supreme Court. We said: In Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S. Ct. 585, 100 L. Ed. 891, cited in the Vallejo case, the court in discussing the due process and equal protection question under the Fourteenth Amendment stated: The question in the instant case, as we pointed out in both the Riley and the Vallejo cases, supra, is whether the court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to order the record and transcript paid for by the county. The final determination of the ultimate facts must be based on the affidavit and the testimony produced at the hearing on the affidavit. The court, in taking the matter under advisement, stated: While the court probably did not believe defendant had told the whole truth, based partly upon observation of him during the trial, the affidavit and testimony stand uncontradicted. While defendant had handled considerable money and had owned property, the same, according to his testimony, had been disposed of and the money had been spent at least none was uncovered during the hearing. Where an affidavit is filed, and hearing held, unless assets or means with which to purchase a record and the transcript other than by borrowing money from friends are shown, then defendant has made out a prima facie case, and it is the duty of the court, in its discretion, to order the payment thereof by the county. The order of the lower court is set aside, with the directions that the record and transcript of testimony be furnished at the expense of Pima County. LOCKWOOD, C.J., STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and UDALL and BERNSTEIN, JJ., concurring.