In this photo, Justices Robyn Brody, left, and Chief Justice G. Richard Bevan, right, listen to oral arguments in a December 2023 hearing. (Kyle Pfannenstiel/Idaho Capital Sun)
The Idaho Supreme Court is deciding who must cover the costs of preparing court transcripts for indigent defendants on appeal — a decision complicated by the state’s recent overhaul of its public defense system.
On Friday, the court ordered four entities — the state public defender, state appellate public defender, Ada County prosecutor, and Canyon County prosecutor — to explain why they should not be financially responsible for these costs. This issue has led to delays in appeals, as payment disputes have stalled the production of transcripts, which are important for the appellate process.
The hearing comes one month after Idaho transitioned to a new public defense system, consolidating 44 county-level state public defender’s offices into one statewide office – the Office of the State Public Defender. The reform was meant to address concerns and lawsuits claiming the previous system was inadequate.
Before the reform, counties paid for these transcripts. However, with the new law relieving counties of their financial obligations for public defense, it remains unclear who should cover this specific expense.
Concerns raised about Idaho’s new public defense system after exodus in public defenders
The issue at question, and what Idaho law says
The issue at question is what government agency is now responsible for paying for appeal transcripts.
Before the State Public Defender Act took effect, Idaho law said “when such transcript is requested by a defendant or his attorney on an appeal in a criminal action where after conviction … the court must direct payment to such court reporter of the page charge in this subsection provided, from the county treasury.”
However, when the act took effect Oct. 1, counties were released from their financial obligations to provide public defense.
According to the State Public Defender Act, “All counties are released from any further financial or legal obligation to provide indigent public defense. On and after (Oct. 1), the state assumes the full financial and legal obligation to provide indigent public defense …”
The act then specifies that the release of the counties’ financial and legal obligation includes no longer needing to provide defense attorneys, investigators, social workers, legal assistants, office materials, technology equipment, software equipment or to “assume any other expense necessary for indigent defense services on and after October 1, 2024.”
State Public Defender, State Appellate Public Defender argue they do not have financial responsibility
State Appellate Public Defender Erik Lehtinen and State Public Defender Eric Fredericksen argued to the court they do not bear the responsibility for transcript costs, given that Idaho law explicitly says counties are responsible for paying for transcript costs.
Additionally, according to court documents, the State Appellate Public Defender’s Office does not have the budget to pay for appeal transcripts. The office estimates that transcripts would cost between $500,000 and $1.9 million per year. The appellate office’s 2025 fiscal year budget is nearly $4.1 million, with almost $4 million of it allocated for personnel costs, and the remaining for operating expenses.
Lehtinen said the legislation was not meant to shift the funding sources of public defense, but rather improve the quality of public defense in Idaho. However, if the responsibility fell on his office, there would not be enough to cover the costs, he said.
Justice Colleen Zahn said she was struggling to understand Lehtinen’s argument, given the specificity of the new law. She said was sympathetic to the cause, but that it is not unusual for an agency to run short of funds and request a supplemental budget.
Lehtinen said his office would look into a supplemental budget depending on the court’s decision. Fredericksen told the court the office already has a supplemental budget request on his radar.
“This requires a legislative fix,” Fredericksen said. “This is something on the radar of our office, but at this point in time we don’t have the funds to fix it.”
Justice Gregory Moeller asked Fredericksen why one month into the establishment of the State Public Defender’s Office they did not prepare for this or foresee this issue.
“Now we have cases potentially backing up and appeals not moving forward because transcripts can’t be produced,” Moeller said.
Fredericksen said his office will decide on a supplemental budget request depending on the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision. He said his office is receiving various requests from counties to pay the expenses they previously covered with the county public defense offices, such as paying for utilities.
“We’re taking the position that we’re not responsible for a number of them,” he said.
Fredericksen said his office would be happy to cover transcript expenses with prosecuting offices since they also use transcripts.
“You’re suggesting we go halfsies?” Justice Robyn Brody said.
“This is a legislative fix, and we’re not there yet,” Fredericksen said.
‘This was an oversight,’ Ada County Prosecutor’s Office says
Representatives from the Canyon County and Ada County Prosecutor’s Office rebuked claims from the State Public Defender and State Appellate Public Defender.
Aaron Bazzoli, representing the Canyon County Prosecutor’s Office, pushed back on Lehtinen’s claims that the State Public Defender’s Act wasn’t meant to change the finances.
“That’s exactly what this was,” Bazzoli said.
Shawna Dunn, representing the Ada County Prosecutor’s Office, agreed with Bazzoli, and said she would be less gracious with the Legislature in her argument.
“This was an oversight,” she said. “And case law says that when this happens, the new wins because it is the purpose of the Legislature passing this law that these costs shift from the counties to the state.”
Dunn argued that the county offices – such as the Ada County Public Defender’s Office – that previously paid for transcripts no longer exist, nor do those budgets.
“Shifting the costs from the counties to the state was the specific intention of the Legislature,” she said. “I understand the debate and the question, and I think the Legislature could not have made (its) intent any more clear.”
Brody said it was of “vital importance” that the agencies work through difficulties to make the system work. The Idaho Supreme Court is taking the arguments under consideration, and will issue an opinion at a later date.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.