Opinion
March 14, 1960.
April 13, 1960.
Criminal Law — Practice — Notes of testimony — Failure to take — Due process — Habeas corpus — Sufficiency of evidence — Defects in indictment — Reading defendant's prior record to jury.
1. In the absence of a request from the defendant, failure to have notes of testimony taken at the trial does not constitute a denial of due process or any other constitutional right.
2. In a habeas corpus proceeding, in which relator contended that the indictment upon which he was convicted was defective in some ways, that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the conviction and that certain of the evidence was false, and that his prior record was improperly read to the jury, it was Held that the questions presented by relator could not properly be raised in a habeas corpus proceeding.
Before RHODES, P.J., GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, WATKINS, and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
Appeal, No. 45, March T., 1960, from order of Court of Common Pleas of York County, Oct. T., 1959, No. 82, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Paul H. Miller v. David N. Myers, Superintendent. Order affirmed.
Habeas corpus.
Order entered discharging rule, opinion by ANDERSON, P.J. Relator appealed.
Paul H. Miller, appellant, in propria persona, submitted a brief. Frank B. Boyle, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Argued March 14, 1960.
This is an appeal by Paul H. Miller from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County discharging a rule to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue. The appellant was convicted of the crimes of (1) assault and battery and (2) carnally knowing and abusing a woman child under 16 years of age. He raises the question that his constitutional guarantee of due process was violated because stenographic notes of his trial were not taken. In the absence of a request from the defendant, failure to have notes of testimony taken at the trial does not constitute a denial of due process or any constitutional right: Com. ex rel. Koffel v. Myers, 184 Pa. Super. 270, 273, 133 A.2d 570.
Appellant also contends that the indictment in some way was defective. It is too late to contest the indictment after conviction.
Appellant also questions the sufficiency of the evidence and complains that certain of this evidence was false. These likewise were matters which should have been raised by a motion for a new trial and may not now be raised in this proceeding.
Appellant also complains that his prior record was read to the jury. As the notes of testimony were not transcribed we are unable to determine whether this was done and, if so, whether it was done improperly. This question also should have been raised in a motion for new trial and may not now be raised in this proceeding.
The appellant was represented by able counsel at his trial and the record indicates that no motion was made for a new trial. We must assume that counsel properly evaluated the case and determined that no adequate grounds existed for a new trial.
Order affirmed.