No. 12706 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1974 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

-vs - 

BILL ROSCOE MERSEAL, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant : 

Daniel J.Shea argued, Missoula, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, 

Montana 

Robert L. Deschanps II1,County Attorney, appeared 

Missoula, Montana 

Harold V. Dye. Deputy County Attorney, argued, 

Missoula , Montana 

For Amicus Curiae: 

Charles Angel argued, Bozeman, Montana 

Submitted: June 25, 1974 

Decided : JUL 2 3 

~ilcd : JUL 8 8 
Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

Application by appellant Bill Roscoe Merseal for an 

order compelling Carroll B. Copeland, official court reporter 

for the fourth judicial district, to supply him with one original 

copy of the transcript of the proceedings in the district court 

and charge him no more than 7-1/2$ per folio (100 words). Appellant intends to reproduce the transcript on his own, for an 

appeal from a conviction for second degree assault. Appellant is 

not an indigent. 

The issue raised is: May a nonindigent appellant in a 

criminal case compel a court reporter to furnish only the original transcript of the trial court proceedings, and furnish 

other copies of the transcript himself? 

In support of his position appellant simply asserts there 

are no explicit rules concerning the number of copies of the transcript which must be filed on appeal. 

Rule IV of the Rules of the Montana Supreme Court, 1966, 

states: 

"1. In all criminal appeals the Montana 

Rules of Appellate Civil Procedure may be 

followed in the preparation of the record 

on appeal insofar as they are applicable 

and not in conflict with a specific statutory provision of the Criminal Code. * * *" 

Rule 10 of the M.R.App.Civ.P. states: 

"(a) * * * Six copies of each transcript 

must be lodged with the clerk of this Court 

for filing. * * *". 

This Court is clearly entitled to six copies of the trial 

transcript. The only statute in Montana's Code of Criminal 

Procedure at variance with the above-quoted rules is section 

95-2428, R.C.M. 1947, which comems itself with indigent appeals 

and is not applicable here. 

We see no merit in appellant's suggestion that he ought to 
be permitted to copy the original transcript by his own methods. 

Assurances by appellant that modern technology would provide us 

with perfectly acceptable copies of the transcript, and at the 

same time save appellant money, miss the point. Our concern 

here is to preserve the integrity of the record. For obvious 

reasons, the record on appeal must be inviolate. The court 

reporter consequently is required to certify to the correctness 

of the transcript. Section 95-2408 (b) , R.C.M. 1947; Rule 9 (b) , 

M.R.App.Civ.P. Common sense indicates the most practicable way 

of ensuring a correct transcript is for the court reporter to 

keep the original copy in his possession at all times and from 

it manufacture more copies as they are needed. Otherwise the 

reporter will be obliged to choose between exposing himself to 

liability or certifying each copy made outside his office and 

recertifying the original. In a day of increasingly voluminous 

transcripts, this Court is not about to cast such a tedious burden 

upon court reporters. 

In view of the foregoing, it is incumbent that the copies 

of the transcript needed by the parties for use on appeal also 

be procured from the reporter. 

The relief sought hy appellant is denied. 

f'- 

-,-,,,, L. - - -- -" L L-*- L ,-,,,,,,-,- L-----& ------- . Chief ~ustice 

We concur: 

,/': 7 /' ~h~,k ,--., !. c&;z< .L ---- -'*--- -----------------"-' 

w. Peter G. &+./district judge, 

sitting in place Mr. Justice Daly. 

Justice Frank I. Haswell did not participate in this cause. 

-3-