Court Opinion

ID: 9536120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:55:08.930756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:27.597285
License: Public Domain

McFARLAND, Justice
(specially concurring) :
I agree with the decision of the majority that the present record in the instant case shows the defendant was deprived of a constitutional right. For this reason I concur in the reversal. However, I wish to point out that the present record was enlarged on a motion of the attorney general to re-open on February 13, 1969, to which were attached five short transcripts of hearings in regard to the arraignment and defendant’s ability to obtain counsel of his choice, which were made a part of this record on the granting of the motion to re-open.
Our decision in the case was made on March 21, 1968 — almost a year previous to the filing of the motion by the attorney general. State v. McGonigle, 103 Ariz. 267, 440 P.2d 100. However, the question of timeliness of the motion is not now before us. The decisions and rules of this Court were adequate to have permitted either the attorney for defendant or the attorney general to have made a motion to enlarge the record before our first decision.
In our previous decision we could only consider those matters which were part of the record at that time. State v. Wilson, 95 Ariz. 372, 390 P.2d 903. While neither the attorney general nor counsel for defendant asked that the record be enlarged prior to the previous decision, it has been enlarged, and we must consider the case on the record as it now exists.
On this basis I concur with the majority in the reversal and remand.