Opinion ID: 2549875
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unrecorded conferences and appellate review

Text: Appellant complains that he has been denied meaningful appellate review because the district court conducted numerous conferences without having them reported, or recorded, and transcribed. Before trial, appellant moved the district court to have all the proceedings of his case reported and transcribed, citing SCR 250 among other authorities. The district court denied the motion. Only rarely should a proceeding in a capital case go unrecorded. SCR 250(5)(a) expressly requires the district courts to ensure that all proceedings in a capital case are reported and transcribed, but with the consent of each party's counsel the court may conduct proceedings outside the presence of ... the court reporter. If any objection is made or any issue is resolved in an unreported proceeding, the court shall ensure that the objection and resolution are made part of the record at the next reported proceeding. Moreover, meaningful, effective appellate review depends upon the availability of an accurate record covering lower court proceedings relevant to the issues on appeal. Failure to provide an adequate record on appeal handicaps appellate review and triggers possible due process clause violations. [6] A capital defendant therefore has a right to have proceedings reported and transcribed. We recognize, however, that this right is not absolute. SCR 250 and due process do not require the presence of the court reporter at every sidebar conference, but the court must make a record of the contents of such conferences at the next break in the trial and allow the attorneys to comment for the record. Similarly, while potential jury instructions can be discussed off the record preliminarily, the instructions must be settled on the record with each party given the opportunity to state its objection to any instruction and explain any requested instruction. Absent objection to or request for an instruction, appellate consideration of the issue is precluded. [7] The mere failure to make a record of a portion of the proceedings, however, standing alone, is not grounds for reversal. Rather, an appellant must demonstrate that the subject matter of the missing portions of the record was so significant that the appellate court cannot meaningfully review an appellant's contentions of error and the prejudicial effect of any error. Here, the portions of the proceedings that were not, or were only partially, reported were not significant enough, in and of themselves, to prevent a meaningful review of the appeal. Thus, we reject appellant's contention that failure to comply with SCR 250 denied him a meaningful review of his conviction.