Majority
Headnote
1. Capital Cases— Record on Appeal — Stenographer’s Minutes — Code Grim. Pro. § 485. If the power exists (which is not decided) in some officer or tribunal to make any change whatever, after they have been filed with the county clerk, in the minutes of the stenographer required by section 485 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to he embodied in the record on appeal from a judgment of death, such power can only he exercised after due opportunity has been afforded to the defendant to he heard.On the 10th of August, 1896, at a trial term of the Supreme Court held in and for the county of St. Lawrence, the defendant was convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree and sentenced to be put to death in the manner jirescribed by law during the week commencing on the 28th of September, 1896. On the 12tli of that month an appeal from the judgment of conviction was taken to this court, and in due course of time printed copies of the judgment roll, notice of appeal and what purported to be the minutes of the stenographer, as transcribed and certified by him and filed with the county clerk, were served on the attorney for the defendant. Each copy bore the certificate of the county clerk that it was a copy of the stenographer’s minutes, the notice of appeal and of the judgment roll on file in his office, and that the same had been compared by him with the originals, and that they were correct transcripts therefrom and of the whole thereof. Upon comparing the printed copies thus certified with the original transcript of the minutes filed with the county clerk and with the copy filed with the governor, it appeared that changes had been made therein, but on investigation it also appeared that such changes were made in good faith to correct what were regarded as manifest errors, and not for the purpose of prejudicing the defendant. While some changes were made by the stenographer by interlineation before the minutes were filed so as to conform to his original notes, others were made without his authority after the minutes were filed, and without the knowledge or consent of the defendant or his attorney. Our attention is called specifically to upwards of one hundred changes, the most of which appear upon inspection to be of no material import
By section 485 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the clerk is required, upon a conviction for a criminal offense, to make up a judgment roll consisting of various papers, which are carefully specified, and, as the section further provides: “When a judgment is of death the clerk, in addition to the foregoing, must forthwith cause to be prepared and printed the number of copies of the stenographer’s minutes and judgment roll which are required by the rules of the Court of Appeals, which shall form a case and exceptions upon which the appeal shall be heard,” and the expense of preparing and printing the same is made a county charge. The practice thus authorized is anomalous, and differs radically from the ordinary means provided for the review of judgments, both civil and criminal. Ordinarily, a case is made by the appellant, to which the respondent may propose amendments, and if these are not agreed upon by the attorneys for the respective parties, they are settled by the judge who presided at the trial. In this way, as the experience of generations has shown, substantial accuracy is attained, and the case is presented to the appellate court upon as perfect a picture of what transpired at the trial as can well be secured. Even on an appeal from Justice’s Court, in a civil action involving the most trifling sum, there is careful provision for repeated amendments of the return in order to obtain a correct record for the purpose of reviewing the judgment. Upon an appeal, however, from a judgment of conviction in a capital case, involving the highest peril to which a human being can be exposed, no opportunity is, in terms, provided for the correction of the most glaring mistake, or the settlement of questions as to alleged mistakes, as there is in civil cases by a hearing on notice before the presiding judge, who, by his experience, knowledge and
Our power to make the order asked for by the defendant is challenged by the learned district attorney upon the ground that the statute has not conferred upon us the requisite authority. In People v. Hoch ( 150 N. Y. 291 ) we held that we had no power to alter the record furnished us by the county clerk. We still adhere to that conclusion, hut we further hold that we have power to require the clerk to do his duty by obeying the statute. This power exists by necessary implication, as the right to hear the appeal involves the right to require such a record to be presented as the law commands the clerk to prepare and print. Unless he does his duty, the right of appeal given to the defendant may be of no avail. As the printed records are required to be furnished to us for official action, we necessarily have the right to determine, upon a proper application and the full presentation of the facts, whether they have been prepared and printed according to law; and, if we find that they have not, to direct the clerk accordingly. While we think, therefore, that the motion should he granted, before we take leave of the subject we wish to call attention to some evils that have been introduced by the strange and unsafe practice provided by the statute under
Aside from the saving of expense to the public and the time of the court, it is dangerous to permit an appeal involving human life to be heard upon a record, the correctness of which depends wholly upon the accuracy of a single official, working, always rapidly, frequently under great difficulties, and sometimes in the midst of confusion caused by the witness and both counsel speaking at the same time. It is no reflection upon the faithful body of men who serve as stenographers in the trial courts to say that they cannot always be accurate; that they sometimes misunderstand the answers of witnesses and fail to
Returning to the matter directly before us, it is ordered that the county clerk of St. Lawrence county forthwith cause to be prepared, printed and served the number of copies of the stenographer’s minutes and judgment roll required by the rules of this court, and that such minutes be printed as they were filed by the stenographer, without omission or change of any kind.
All concur.
Motion granted.
Cases cited
- People v. Hoch 150 N. Y. 291 p. 547