Opinion ID: 867277
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adequacy of the record on appeal

Text: ¶ 57 Hargrave argues that the trial record is inadequate to allow proper appellate review because the trial court held several unrecorded bench conferences throughout the proceedings. ¶ 58 During jury selection, the parties held two unrecorded conferences without objection from the defense. The State argues that, by failing to object to these conferences, Hargrave waived any claim of error. We disagree. Hargrave filed a pretrial motion requesting a record of all trial proceedings, which the court granted, and he requested a standing objection to unrecorded bench conferences. See State v. Sharp, 193 Ariz. 414, 421 ¶ 22, 973 P.2d 1171, 1178 (1999). ¶ 59 During trial, the court held several other unrecorded bench conferences, despite repeated defense objections. When defense counsel asked to maintain a standing objection, the court noted the objection, but observed that it lacked the equipment to record bench conferences. ¶ 60 The court then began to make an after-the-fact record of each unrecorded conference and changed its practice regarding juror questions. The court's staff would show counsel the jurors' written questions, and if either party objected, the court would excuse the jury to allow counsel to state the reasons for any objections on the record. Hargrave argues that this practice forced him to object in front of the jury, in violation of Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 18.6(e), which requires that the court provide counsel an opportunity ... to object to such questions out of the presence of the jury.  Ariz. R.Crim. P. 18.6(e) (emphasis added). The trial court, in response, invited counsel to ask for an opportunity to make a record, at which point he would excuse the jury so that counsel could state objections. Hargrave also notes other gaps in the record such as an unreported bench conference regarding an exhibit that the court subsequently admitted into evidence. ¶ 61 The court record must be sufficiently complete to allow adequate consideration of the errors assigned. State v. Moore, 108 Ariz. 532, 534, 502 P.2d 1351, 1353 (1972) (citing Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487, 83 S.Ct. 774, 9 L.Ed.2d 899 (1963)). We have disapproved of the practice of holding unrecorded bench conferences. State v. Bay, 150 Ariz. 112, 115, 722 P.2d 280, 283 (1986); State v. Fletcher, 149 Ariz. 187, 189, 717 P.2d 866, 868 (1986). Nevertheless, we have never required the verbatim reporting of all bench conferences. State v. Berndt, 138 Ariz. 41, 46, 672 P.2d 1311, 1316 (1983). ¶ 62 The procedures here, while not ideal, sufficiently protected Hargrave's right to have a reviewable record. Despite failing to record all sidebar conferences, the trial judge did ensure that an adequate after-the-fact record was made of the discussions that occurred during each unrecorded conference and, as to each, he obtained defense counsel's assent that he had adequately described the discussions. By this procedure, the trial court maintained a sufficient record for appeal. [9]