Fraser v. Payne

California Supreme Court May 17, 1935 No. L. A. 14974Published

Before: Preston

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that ordering a daily transcript of voir dire proceedings at county expense constitutes an abuse of judicial discretion, while affirming the payment for daily transcripts of testimony and exhibits in a felony case.

Issues

Whether a trial court abuses its discretion by ordering a daily transcript of voir dire proceedings at the expense of the county.
Whether the trial court has the authority to order the county to pay for daily transcripts of testimony and exhibits in a criminal case.

Disposition. Reversed in part; affirmed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it is clear that a wholesale daily transcript in toto of voir dire examinations, at the expense of the county, cannot be defended.”

“we hold that a discussion of these matters is unnecessary for we are compelled to state that an abuse of judicial discretion is present in both instances.”

PRESTON, J.

There are before us three consolidated eases in mandate against the County of Los Angeles and its Auditor and Treasurer, to compel payment of certain charges made by petitioners, as court reporters, for making daily transcripts ordered by the trial judge on the suggestion of the parties in two certain criminal proceedings held in the superior court of said county. Relief was given each petitioner and the writs made peremptory. From all the judgments respondents have appealed on a transcript which shows the facts to be undisputed.

[632]

In two of the cases, Nos. 337,379 and 337,380, the daily transcripts ordered and furnished were merely of the proceedings taken upon empanelment of the jury in the cause of

People

Clark,

a murder case. Some seven or eight days were consumed in selection of a jury and of such proceedings the reporters made daily transcripts of their notes, compensation for which constitutes the charges which are the subject of the above-numbered of these consolidated cases. Said charges in the aggregate amount to $1165.32. In the criminal case the defendant was later acquitted.

The question presented is that of the propriety of an order of the court for daily transcripts under circumstances and conditions such as here shown. It does not appear that upon empanelment of said jury any challenges for cause were made and disallowed or that any other questioned rulings were made. We are unable to see any legitimate use that could have been made of the transcripts. If questioned rulings were made, advantage of them could not be taken until after conviction of the defendant and only then upon a motion for new trial or on appeal. The time to order a transcript of the examination of talesmen would not seem to arise until after the trial and conviction of a defendant in a criminal case. It may be possible that under circumstances which do not now occur to us, it would be expedient to have an immediate transcript of all or some parts of the examination of a venireman, but it is clear that a wholesale daily transcript

in toto

Fraser v. Payne

AI Brief

PRESTON, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief