269 P.3d 337
Wash. Ct. App.2012Background
- Burton was convicted of solicitation to commit first-degree murder for paying an undercover officer to kill her former employer/lover.
- Trial transcript production was delayed about three years by the court reporter, with the record eventually settled using a clarifying affidavit and trial notes.
- Superior Court and appellate review proceeded despite garbled passages in the produced transcript.
- Burton moved to vacate the judgment during the extended delay; the court conducted record supplementation under RAP 9.4 and 9.5.
- The court ultimately affirmed the conviction, holding no due process violation from the delay absent actual prejudice and upholding the reconstructed record for review.
- The record showed the defense alleging entrapment and the State introducing some bad-acts evidence with limiting instructions, but no reversible error found on the record given the context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate delay violated due process. | Burton argues three-year transcript delay prejudiced review. | State contends delay was nonprejudicial and process still fair. | No due process violation absent actual prejudice; delay alone not cause for new trial. |
| Whether the record is sufficient for reviewing prosecutorial misconduct/ineffective assistance claims. | Burton claims garbled transcript undermines review. | State argues reconstructed clarifications suffice for review. | Reconstructed transcript adequate; no new trial required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lennon, State v., 94 Wn. App. 573, 976 P.2d 121 (Wash. App. 1999) (due process concerns in appellate delay; right to appeal)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1985) (due process safeguards for appellate review; fairness of appeal)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor Barker test for delay in trials, adapted to appeals)
- Vermont v. Brillon, 129 S. Ct. 1283 (S. Ct. 2009) (state not wholly responsible for delay due to systemic issues; limited burden)
- State v. Classen, 143 Wash. App. 45, 176 P.3d 582 (Wash. App. 2008) (reconstructed records may be adequate for review)
- Tilton, 149 Wash. 2d 775, 72 P.3d 735 (Wash. 2003) (missing portions may require new trial if essential to issues)