Opinion ID: 2178431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of motion for continuance at District Court level.

Text: Admitting that the probable cause hearing is not ordinarily a critical stage in criminal proceedings, Holbrook v. State of Maine, 1965, 161 Me. 102, 105, 208 A.2d 313, the defendant argues that the District Court's denial of his motion to continue the probable cause hearing to secure the services of a court reporter had an appreciable effect in depriving trial counsel of probable cross-examination leverage due to the absence of a record concerning pretrial disclosure of the prosecutrix's evidence. The Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that the magistrate shall allow the defendant reasonable time and opportunity to consult counsel and shall admit him to bail, 5(b), and that he shall hear the evidence within a reasonable time, 5(c). The defendant is expressly granted therein the right to cross examine witnesses against him and to introduce evidence in his own behalf. Neither the statutes nor the rules require that a transcript be made of the proceedings at the probable cause hearing. The purpose of a preliminary examination for one charged with a felony is to determine whether an offense has been committed and whether there is probable cause for charging a defendant with the commission thereof. The proceeding is not a judicial trial of the issue of guilt or innocence. Kaye, Petr. v. Keeper of the Jail, 1950, 145 Me. 103, 72 A.2d 811. There is nothing in the language or the history of Rule 5 to suggest that the preliminary examination has any purpose other than to afford a person arrested upon complaint an opportunity to challenge the existence of probable cause for detaining him or requiring bail pending grand jury action. It was not intended as a means of discovery in aid to trial preparation. Smith v. O'Brien, 1969, 109 N.H. 317, 251 A.2d 323; Sciortino v. Zampano, 1967, 2d Cir., 385 F.2d 132, cert. den. 390 U.S. 906, 88 S.Ct. 820, 19 L.Ed.2d 872. Where the requested continuance would have postponed the hearing beyond the date when the Grand Jury convened, we cannot say the magistrate erred in refusing to delay the hearing. There was no abuse of discretion; furthermore, any claim of prejudice would be highly conjectural.