Opinion ID: 1788460
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Insufficient Transcript

Text: McGehee complains for his second point that the case should be remanded for retrial because the integrity of the record is suspect. He argues that it would be a farce to uphold his conviction for capital murder under these circumstances. The State's response is that McGehee is not entitled to a new trial because he failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by any absent tapes and the quality of the record. The status of the record in this case has been an issue since 1995. McGehee filed a petition for writ of certiorari to complete the record, and the motion was granted. This court issued a per curium opinion explaining the circumstances and ordered that the record be settled and returned within 30 days. See McGehee v. State, 323 Ark. 704, 916 S.W.2d 756 (1996). On April 11 and 18, 1996, a hearing was held before the trial court to reconstruct the record. The trial court noted that ten bench conferences were not transcribed in the record. McGehee's counsel further announced that there were several other bench conferences that were not noted in the record. He estimated that there were 25 to 30 omitted bench conferences, and he saw no way to reconstruct all of them. The trial court then stated that it would rule on each reconstructed conference. As the attorneys made their way through the gaps in the record, it was revealed at one point that the prosecuting attorney had called a bench conference to discuss retiring O'Neal's jury when McGehee's statement to the police was introduced. The O'Neal jury was apparently excused. However, there is no testimony about the taking of the McGehee statement by police officers or its introduction. That statement is included in the record along with the other exhibits, and it does bear State's exhibit number 23. Counsel for McGehee repeatedly objected throughout the reconstruction hearing that more testimony was turning up missing in addition to the bench conferences. Furthermore, it developed that tape 2 from July 15, 1994, and tapes 4 and 5 from July 19, 1993, could not be found to compare against the transcript. Neither could the court reporter's notes for July 12 and 13, 1994, be found. McGehee advised his attorney that he thought he remembered one tape being eaten by the machine during trial. Court Reporter Val Dixon-Sims agreed that that was possible, but she did not confirm that it did happen. The attorneys and trial court also discovered that one tape had not been transcribed. This explained why the transcript segued from Chief Melton's testimony about the McGehee interrogation into Sergeant McAnally's testimony about the crime scene. The transcript further did not reveal whether only O'Neal's jury was present when O'Neal's statement was introduced. The trial court agreed with counsel for McGehee that the transcript contained several inconsistencies but noted that defense counsel could not point to where those inconsistencies substantially affected the rights of his client, except to say that the cumulative effect of the errors could cause prejudice. The prosecutor agreed generally that the court reporter should not have certified the transcript due to the omitted portions of the trial, the fact that statements made by one attorney were attributed to another attorney, and the fact that statements made at trial were typed incorrectly. Following the hearing, the trial court issued an order stating that the record had been settled and that the parties had agreed that the omissions and inconsistencies had little effect upon the transcribed record. McGehee then filed a motion for a retrial in this court due to the deficient record, but this court denied the motion. The rules of appellate procedure provide for the reconstruction of a transcript by the best means available. See Ark. R.App. P. Civil 6(d). In Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Drew, 276 Ark. 390, 635 S.W.2d 252 (1982), we held that where there is virtually no record of the proceedings conducted out of the presence of the jury and where the record is inadequate for appellate review, the appellate court can do nothing other than remand the case for new trial. In Drew , we specifically stated that it is reversible error when the record cannot be settled pursuant to Rule 6. This rule has been applied to a criminal case where the trial court declared that the record could not be settled. See Ward v. State, 321 Ark. 659, 906 S.W.2d 685 (1995) (per curiam). In reversing the death sentence in Ward , we relied on the fact that the omitted portions of the record were required to be transcribed, and the State could point to no proof in the record that cured the error. This court has most recently reversed a conviction and remanded for a new trial in a case where the same court reporter, Val Dixon-Sims, could not produce a complete transcript of the trial. See Jacobs v. State, 327 Ark. 498, 939 S.W.2d 824 (1997). In Jacobs , we stated that the trial court has an affirmative duty to see that the court reporter performs satisfactorily in order to provide an adequate record for appeal. We restated the rule announced in Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Drew, supra , and Ward v. State, supra , and we stated that when life sentences are involved, the record must be sufficient to review all errors prejudicial to the defendant under Supreme Court Rule 4-3(h), which necessitates that the appellant abstract all rulings adverse to him. That burden could not be met in Jacobs , and we remanded for a new trial. The State argues that no new trial is required, and it relies on Smith v. State, 324 Ark. 74, 918 S.W.2d 714 (1996), to support its position. In Smith , we concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated prejudice from the state of the record. But in Smith , the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to forty years; thus, Rule 4-3(h) was not at issue. In addition, Smith complained only of three isolated incidences where the transcript was deficient, and the trial court addressed the complaints specifically and restated the facts surrounding his ruling. In the instant case, the parties made a valiant and concerted effort to reconstruct the record. At the hearing, the trial court addressed each instance where the transcript noted a bench conference but where testimony of the conference was not transcribed. The parties listened painstakingly to the tapes, and although there was some disagreement throughout the hearing, no one, including McGehee's counsel, could show where any individual omission regarding a bench conference was prejudicial. Nevertheless, the parties' agreement on these precise incidents does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 4-3(h) for the entire trial. There is one aspect of the record that is particularly troublesome. As referenced above, the record does not specifically show the circumstances surrounding the taking of McGehee's statement by police officers or that that statement was introduced into evidence. The McGehee statement is included in the packet of exhibits, but this gap in evidence was not addressed or cured by the attorneys in the reconstruction hearing. We believe that Chief Melton's omitted testimony on McGehee's statement is crucial to a review of this case. See Ward v. State, supra . There is also no record of whether the McGehee jury was present when the O'Neal statement was read into evidence. Because the O'Neal statement implicated McGehee in the murder, this clearly would have been reversible error. Yet, we cannot determine from the record what happened in this regard. We conclude that we are precluded by the state of this record from a full review of what transpired at trial, which is particularly problematic when we are required to review all adverse rulings in life and capital cases under Supreme Court Rule 4-3(h). There is one additional point. Following the hearing, the trial court entered an order reconstructing the record. That order reads in part: 4. The parties agreed to and were satisfied with the meaning, essence and interpretation given each bench conference by the Court. 5. The parties further agreed and admitted that the omissions and inconsistencies found between actual and transcribed records had very little [e]ffect, if any, upon the interpretation and meaning of the transcribed record. Defense counsel apparently did not object to this language before the trial court. Nevertheless, the court order pertained only to the reconstructed bench conferences and did not relate to the missing tape or to the questions surrounding the introduction of the O'Neal and McGehee statements before the two juries. McGehee's counsel objected throughout the hearing about the gaps in the transcript. And after the trial court's order, he moved for a new trial in this court based on the defective transcript, and we denied the motion. We do not conclude defense counsel waived his objections to the state of the record under these facts. Now on full review, we agree that a new trial is warranted. The confusion over the introduction of the two statements before the McGehee and O'Neal juries in the same proceeding would warrant it. Without clarification concerning those statements, in addition to the numerous omissions and inconsistencies in the transcript, and because of the court reporter's failure to transcribe at least one tape, we have no choice but to remand for a new trial where life without parole is the sentence at issue. Reversed and remanded.