Court Opinion

ID: 9745664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 23:16:40.732591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:03.935950
License: Public Domain

Reardon, J.
(dissenting) There is no escape from the practical difficulty of providing stenographers and free transcripts for indigents “at all criminal trials and proceedings in all courts” as emphasized by the majority. However, the majority opinion seems to me a misreading of Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U. S. 40. One cannot dis*333miss its effect on the ground of cost or unavailability of stenographers. As Mr. Justice Powell has recently stated, “[I]f the Constitution requires the rule . . . the consequences are immaterial.” Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25.
In the Roberts case a New York defendant charged with robbery, larceny, and assault was denied at trial his request for a free transcript of a prior preliminary hearing. The majority opinion refers to the New York statute under which a transcript made by the State could be procured upon payment of a fee. The Roberts case holds that the statute constituted a denial to an indigent defendant of the equal protection of the laws. The majority opinion likewise refers to People v. Montgomery, 18 N. Y. 2d 993, which emphasized that the exercise of a right afforded to a defendant by the State cannot be conditioned upon his ability to pay. That is precisely the situation before us. Under the New York statute the State transcribed the proceedings and furnished the transcript to the defendants for a fee. Under our statute (G. L. c. 221, § 91B, inserted by St. 1965, c. 585), a defendant “may have the proceedings taken by a stenographer provided at his own expense.” *1 Under both statutes the end result is the same. Under both statutes a defendant may be deprived of a needed transcript simply because of his indigency status. Since the Commonwealth has seen fit to grant an important right to defendants in criminal cases, it cannot interpose a financial obstacle to the exercise of that right.
It is possible, however, as the majority opinion suggests, that electronic recording devices may be a viable alternative to stenographic recording. See Reynolds, Alaska’s Ten Years of Electronic Reporting, 56 Am. Bar Assn. J. 1080. Compare Boyko, The Case Against Elec*334tronic Courtroom Reporting, 57 Am. Bar Assn. J. 1008. This would obviate the practical difficulties foreseen by the majority. Under Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U. S. 226, a defendant need not be provided with a stenographic transcript of a prior proceeding if an adequate alternative exists. But the Commonwealth has the burden of proof on this issue. Britt v. North Carolina, supra, 230. Until the Commonwealth can sustain this burden I would hold that the indigent who is brought before a District Court charged with a felony is entitled under the equal protection clause of the Federal Constitution to a free transcript of the proceedings. I would answer both questions reported to us “Yes.”

 It is a fair inference that each defendant’s indigence prevented him from securing the presence of a stenographer in the court room. I have no doubt that the equal protection question is properly before us.