Opinion ID: 2174346
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: inaccurate transcript

Text: Christeson alleges that the trial transcript is materially inaccurate and prevents this Court from undertaking meaningful appellate review so that the case must be remanded for a new trial. Appellants are entitled to a full and complete transcript for the appellate court's review, but they are entitled to relief only if they exercised due diligence to correct the deficiency in the record and they were prejudiced by the alleged defects. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d at 466. Under Rule 30.04(h), omissions and misstatements in the record may be corrected by stipulation of the parties or by an order of the appellate court directing that the defect be corrected. Here, Christeson attempted to correct alleged defects by requesting an order from this Court directing the court reporter to produce an accurate transcript. Thus, Christeson exercised due diligence in attempting to cure the defects. Nonetheless, he is not entitled to relief because, with the exception of one statement, discussed below, he has not identified the inaccuracies, and, in any event, he has not shown that he was prejudiced. Instead, he merely cites various lines on eighty pages dispersed throughout a transcript of more than 2,000 pages and alleges that a mistake occurred, without specifying what the mistake was or how it affects his appeal. He leaves this Court with the chore of pinpointing each alleged error and then discerning any prejudicial impact. The majority of the alleged inaccuracies appears to be either typographical errors or witness or counsel misstatements. Typical of these are the following: Could you volt for the death penalty; they'll surely give you an hour to eat and take a beak; [m]ay I please the court; summoned as protected jurors. Other errors are similarly trivial. On many of the pages Christeson cites, there are no errors at all. Because the errors that do appear are trivial or inconsequential, Christeson does not demonstrate the prejudice necessary to have an actionable claim. See Middleton, 995 S.W.2d at 466. As to the statement that Christeson claims is one of the most significant errors, no prejudice could have resulted. That statementmade by defense counsel while instructing venirepersons about the death penaltywas: if you're chosen to sit on this jury, at the time whatsoever will the Court through its instructions require you to give the death penalty.... Any potential prejudice was cured immediately when counsel, two sentences later, stated that at no time would you ever be required to give the death penalty. In addition, the trial court itself instructed that [t]he jury is never required to return a sentence of death.