AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. CLIFTON JACOBS, appellant.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and the determination made after the reconstruction hearing by the County Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.), on January 22, 2001, it is

ORDERED that the motion is granted, the judgment is reversed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for a new trial.

After a jury trial in 1997, the defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree, criminal contempt in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and resisting arrest. Over the next three years, the defendant's assigned counsel attempted to obtain the trial transcript from the court reporter for the purpose of perfecting an appeal. After the court reporter was held in contempt of court, fined, and imprisoned, she produced an incomplete transcript, which was missing the summations, the jury instructions, and a read back of the charges. Consequently, the defendant moved for summary reversal of the judgment.

By decision and order dated June 8, 2000, this court denied the defendant's motion and remitted the matter to the County Court, Orange County, for a reconstruction hearing. Although the prosecutor who tried the case claimed to recall all the relevant proceedings, the Trial Judge (who also presided over the reconstruction hearing) and the defense attorney both admitted that their recollections were vague at best. Accordingly, the County Court determined that the missing minutes could not be accurately reconstructed.

Under the circumstances of this case, including the court reporter's failure to transcribe the minutes for three years, the missing transcript of the summations, the jury instructions, and a read back of the charges, and the absence of an alternative method of providing an adequate record for appellate review, the defendant is entitled to summary reversal of the judgment and a new trial (see, People v. Rivera, 39 N.Y.2d 519; People v. Cameron, 219 A.D.2d 662; People v. Hall, 200 A.D.2d 474).

SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, S. MILLER and FRIEDMANN, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. JACOBS
(Aug 13, 2001)