319 P.3d 252
Haw.2013Background
- On Oct. 18, 2009 an altercation involving Kevin Scott, his brother Jefferson Scott, and victims Leif and Kerry Martin led to separate indictments and separate trials for the brothers.
- Jefferson was tried first and convicted of lesser offenses; Kerry was the key eyewitness at both trials.
- Kevin Scott requested written transcripts and DVD recordings of Jefferson’s trial to prepare for his June 2010 trial; the trial court and the administrative judge denied the requests and denied a continuance.
- Scott proceeded to trial without the codefendant’s transcript/DVD, was convicted of assault and terroristic threatening, and appealed; the ICA affirmed, reasoning Scott had not shown particularized necessity and that his request was untimely.
- The Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted certiorari, applied the Britt two-factor test (value of transcript; availability of alternatives), and held the transcript/DVD were innately valuable and no adequate alternative was provided, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Scott) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an indigent defendant is entitled to a codefendant’s trial transcript/DVD when needed for an effective defense | Transcript/DVD of Jefferson’s trial were necessary for trial prep and impeachment because the cases arose from the same incident and shared key witnesses (Kerry) | Scott failed to show particularized need, did not preserve issue properly, and alternatives (grand jury transcript, statements, 911 tape, DVD availability) were adequate | Court held Scott was entitled: codefendant’s transcript/DVD were innately valuable; no adequate alternatives were provided; error in denying them required vacatur and remand for new trial |
| Whether defendant must show particularized need for a codefendant’s transcript | Not required; transcripts have intrinsic value for preparation and impeachment | The administrative judge and ICA required specifics and timeliness | Court followed Britt/Mundon: no particularized showing required when transcript is of the same incident with same witnesses |
| Whether audio/video recordings or other materials suffice as alternatives to written transcript | Counsel requested either written transcript or DVD; DVD was not provided | State argued DVDs existed and grand jury record/other materials were adequate | Court found DVDs were denied and other materials (grand jury, statements, 911) were not adequate substitutes for trial testimony; State bears burden to show adequate alternative |
| Appropriate remedy when indigent defendant wrongly denied transcript | Automatic reversal/remand for new trial given prejudice is unascertainable; applies at least where cases substantially overlap and key witness is common | State urged harmless-error or affirmance | Court vacated convictions and remanded for new trial; majority did not definitively adopt per se rule but found error not harmless; concurrence advocated automatic reversal without prejudice showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 (1971) (State must provide indigent defendant transcript of prior proceedings when needed for effective defense; two-factor test)
- State v. Mundon, 121 Hawai‘i 339, 219 P.3d 1126 (2009) (Haw. Supreme Court applying Britt; transcripts innately valuable and electronic alternatives inadequate when inaccessible)
- People v. Russell, 7 Ill. App. 3d 850, 289 N.E.2d 106 (1972) (indigent defendant entitled to codefendants’ trial transcripts where same witness testified extensively in both trials)
- People v. Hosner, 15 Cal.3d 60, 538 P.2d 1141 (1975) (California Supreme Court: denial of transcript of prior trial so pervasive that automatic reversal is required)
- Kennedy v. Lockyer, 379 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2004) (failure to provide transcript of prior crucial portions of trial prejudiced defendant because it impeded effective defense planning)