Opinion ID: 1202216
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Requirement of Prejudice

Text: Menzies' first argument, that he is not required to show prejudice, is based on Lee's licensure status and the fact that there are numerous transcription errors in the record. As held above, Lee meets the requirements of both a de facto reporter and a temporary reporter; therefore, the instant transcript is to be treated as any other transcript certified on appeal. Furthermore, while it is true that the record contains transcription errors, the mere existence of such errors does not mandate a new trial. The clear weight of authority requires a showing of prejudice to overturn a conviction on the basis of transcription errors. [28] Indeed, this court has followed such an approach. [29] In State v. Taylor, [30] we reversed a conviction on the ground that omissions in the transcript rendered the record inadequate for appeal. In so holding, we did not simply note that the transcript did not accurately reflect the proceedings. Rather, we emphasized that extensive omissions in the voir dire of jurors who were challenged for cause and whose recorded answers illustrated prejudice prevented review of the defendant's claim that the trial court erred in not dismissing the jurors, [31] a claim that could have resulted in reversal. [32] We hold, therefore, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Menzies must show that his appeal is prejudiced by the transcription errors in order to be granted a new trial.