Opinion ID: 2612329
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Tape Recording vs. Typed Transcript

Text: Johnson claims that his constitutional rights of due process were violated by using a tape recorder to record the trial and by requiring that the tapes be submitted to the appellate court. No authority is cited by Johnson for this proposition and we reject it. The law in New Mexico has long been settled that the taped recording of a trial court's proceedings properly preserves the record for appellate review with no inherent prejudicial effect. See State ex rel. Moreno v. Floyd, 85 N.M. 699, 516 P.2d 670 (1973); see also State v. Warner, 86 N.M. 219, 521 P.2d 1168 (Ct.App. 1974); State v. Lard, 86 N.M. 71, 519 P.2d 307 (Ct.App. 1974). Moreover, the taped recording of a trial court's proceedings adds a most important and significant dimension to the understanding and evaluation of the spoken words. State ex rel. v. Moreno, supra, 85 N.M. at 702, 516 P.2d at 673. Therefore, we determine that Johnson's due process rights were not violated by the use of cassette tapes to preserve the trial court record.