Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Taylor v. State
Citations: 477 So. 2d 509; 1985 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 5341Docket: 6 Div. 609
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; June 11, 1985; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Howard Jeffrey Taylor, a 26-year-old janitor, was convicted of statutory rape involving a 10-year-old girl, a student at his workplace. Taylor denied the allegations, claiming he was elsewhere during the incidents. On appeal, he raised three issues, primarily arguing that the trial court erred by not providing a complete transcript from a previous mistrial of the same case. He cited Britt v. North Carolina and Zeigler v. State, which establish that an indigent defendant is entitled to a transcript when it is necessary for appeal and no alternatives are sufficient. The record of the hearing on Taylor's motion for a transcript was incomplete, and it was noted that he had previously been represented by retained counsel before being appointed counsel when he could no longer afford it. The appellate court found merit in Taylor's claim regarding the transcript and remanded the case for a hearing to determine his entitlement to it. Upon remand, the Circuit Court of Jefferson County held a hearing where both parties presented their arguments. The trial judge acknowledged that Taylor had access to audio recordings from the mistrial, but Taylor’s attorney argued that these recordings were not as useful as a written transcript. The court's decision on whether a free transcript should have been provided is pending based on the findings from this hearing. The appellant experienced difficulties with court reporter tapes, which were recorded at half-speed. The trial judge noted that lawyers have previously used the court reporter's equipment to listen to and re-record tapes, and mentioned a specific store in Homewood that offers similar services. The judge could not recall if he informed the appellant's attorney about these options or if he had been made aware of any issues the attorney faced with the tapes. The attorney acknowledged ample time to review the tapes before trial and did not dispute having received them sufficiently in advance. The judge concluded by stating he attempted to address the concerns without providing a formal transcript and was not informed of any inadequacies regarding the tapes at the time. The court confirmed that an alternative device fulfilling the transcript's function was used, leading to the decision to affirm the case. All judges concurred.