Opinion ID: 2833512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Record in Pretrial Hearings

Text: Second, the appellate record contains no reporter’s record of the special appearance hearing. Though candidly conceding that no oral testimony or new exhibits were presented at that hearing, Holten nevertheless argues we must presume evidence was presented that supports the trial court’s order. It is difficult to state a bright-line rule regarding unrecorded pretrial proceedings, as they come in so many shapes and sizes. Many pretrial “hearings” take place entirely on paper, while others involve a personal appearance in court. [6] In some the parties must file all evidence with the clerk; [7] in others they must present it in open court; [8] in most the manner of presentation is discretionary; [9] in at least one the answer is unclear. [10] What is clear is that a reporter’s record is required only if evidence is introduced in open court; for nonevidentiary hearings, it is superfluous. [11] If all the evidence is filed with the clerk and only arguments by counsel are presented in open court, the appeal should be decided on the clerk’s record alone. [12] The difficulty of course is that the absence of a reporter’s record does not tell us whether a pretrial hearing was nonevidentiary , or evidentiary but not preserved. Presuming them all the former unfairly penalizes a party that presents evidence in open court that the other party does not bother to preserve. But presuming them all the latter would require every hearing to be recorded C whether evidentiary (to show what was presented) or not (to show nothing was). Besides being wasteful, this would frustrate the intent of our appellate rule requiring a reporter’s record only “if necessary to the appeal.” [13] For some years now the trend has been away from full evidentiary hearings in open court for most pretrial matters. While we have generally encouraged oral hearings when arguments may be helpful, [14] both the Legislature and this Court have discouraged oral presentation of testimony and evidence when they can be fairly submitted in writing. [15] Counsel can almost always direct the trial court’s attention to pertinent deposition excerpts, discovery responses, or affidavits in less time than it takes to recreate them in open court. Presuming that most pretrial proceedings are evidentiary would not only discourage this trend, but would encumber thousands of routine hearings by requiring formal proof that no proof was offered. Accordingly, we have in the past presumed that pretrial hearings are nonevidentiary absent a specific indication or assertion to the contrary. [16] If the proceeding’s nature, the trial court’s order, the party’s briefs, or other indications show that an evidentiary hearing took place in open court, then a complaining party must present a record of that hearing to establish harmful error. [17] But otherwise, appellate courts should presume that pretrial hearings are nonevidentiary , and that the trial court considered only the evidence filed with the clerk. It is true that a dozen years ago in Piotrowski v. Minns we stated: “[a] litigant who fails to request that the reporter record pretrial proceedings risks waiver of any complaint with respect to error occurring during those proceedings.” [18] But the appellant there conceded that the special appearance hearing was evidentiary. [19] Moreover, since that time the rules have changed so that court reporters no longer attend court and make a record only “when requested” but now must do so “unless excused by agreement of the parties.” [20] The former rule implied a lack of diligence when the losing party requested no record; [21] the current rule implies an agreement that no record was made because none was needed. Either party, of course, may allege that a hearing was evidentiary, but that allegation must be specific. Merely asserting that the trial court “considered evidence at the hearing” is not enough C trial courts do that when a hearing is conducted entirely on paper, or based solely on affidavits and exhibits filed beforehand. Instead, there must be a specific indication that exhibits or testimony was presented in open court beyond that filed with the clerk. As the rules of professional conduct prohibit assertions that a hearing was evidentiary when it was not, [22] and as events in open court can usually be confirmed by many witnesses, there is no reason to expect that such assertions will be lightly fabricated. Our appellate rules are designed to resolve appeals on the merits, and we must interpret and apply them whenever possible to achieve that aim. [23] Accordingly, we decline to presume the special appearance hearing here was evidentiary when everyone concedes it was not.