Opinion ID: 6109690
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Insufficient Record

Text: Thrower raises eight additional issues on appeal. One is that, despite the circuit court's reconstruction efforts, the record remains incomplete and insufficient for our review. His remaining seven issues all relate to this because each involves an issue where there is an omission in the record. We agree that despite considerable efforts by the circuit court and the parties, the record remains insufficient for appellate review. When a defendant is sentenced to life imprisonment, the Court must review all errors prejudicial to the appellant in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 16-91-113 (a). Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(i) (2017). To facilitate such a comprehensive review, the rules require that the appellant abstract all adverse rulings that occurred during the proceedings in such a manner that the court can review each ruling. Id. This allows this court to conduct not only the  review of the issues on appeal but also its Rule 4-3(i) review. When there is an omission in the record, we consider whether the reconstructed record permits a full review of the proceedings from which an appeal has been taken. Ward v. State , 321 Ark. 659 , 660, 906 S.W.2d 685 , 687 (1995). In considering the sufficiency of a reconstructed record, this court exhibits heightened concern where the appeal involves a life sentence. See Hood v. State , 329 Ark. 21 , 947 S.W.2d 328 (1997) ; McGehee v. State , 328 Ark. 404 , 943 S.W.2d 585 (1997) ; Jacobs v. State , 327 Ark. 498 , 939 S.W.2d 824 (1997). Even despite a valiant and concerted effort to reconstruct the record, which resulted in the parties' full agreement, this court has held that the record failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 4-3. McGehee , 328 Ark. at 414 , 943 S.W.2d at 590 . Initially, Thrower argues that the lack of a verbatim record, in and of itself, requires a reversal. We disagree. While a verbatim record is certainly ideal, to require it in every instance would render our rules for record reconstruction and settlement inoperative. Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 6 (2017) 1 . Instead, this court evaluates whether the supplemented record enables a full and complete appellate review. Lewis v. State , 354 Ark. 359 , 362, 123 S.W.3d 891 , 893 (2003). Here, the circuit court conducted a reconstruction hearing and supplemented the record. The court identified fourteen omitted bench conferences 2 and two court recesses for reconstruction. Thrower, however, argues that the record remains incomplete and insufficient because the omitted conferences were not adequately reconstructed and the written jury instructions and two juror notes 3 are still absent. At the reconstruction hearing, the circuit court, prosecutor, and defense counsel fully agreed on what occurred during five of the bench conferences. The defense counsel could not recall the specifics of the remaining nine identified conferences. The circuit court explained that the two court recesses did not require reconstruction because neither involved conversations requiring the court reporter's transcription. The record does not contain any discussion of jury instructions, objections, proffers, or rulings. The written jury instructions are not in the record. The only reconstruction of jury instructions transpired when the court was reconstructing the fourteenth missing bench conference, which occurred after the jury returned a guilty verdict. The court explained that this bench conference developed the sentencing-phase jury instructions, and that the parties agreed to them with no issues. After some discussion, defense counsel ultimately agreed he did not object or have issues with the sentencing-phase jury instructions. At this point, the court stated, The only issue on jury instruction was during the guilt phase,  which you [defense attorney] asked for a lesser included which I gave. The problem is that was the last reconstructed bench conference. Nowhere in the reconstruction of the omitted bench conferences was there a discussion on guilt-phase jury instructions, objections, requests, proffers, or rulings. This is particularly concerning because the court recalled that an issue did occur concerning the guilt-phase jury instructions. Moreover, this issue became more difficult when the court followed the reconstruction hearing with a written order in which the court held that [u]pon review of the record, the jury instructions were recorded verbatim by the court reporter as read by the trial judge to the jury. But the court reporter's verbatim recording does not contain a jury instruction on lesser-included charges. Thus, the court's statement at the hearing that the jury received instructions on the lesser-included charge, upon request of defense counsel, directly contradicts the court reporter's verbatim transcript. The State argues that it seems likely that the judge simply misspoke, and that Thrower cannot show prejudice. However, the issue is weightier than merely whether Thrower prevails in arguing he was entitled to lesser-included jury instructions. The ultimate issue is whether the record is sufficiently complete for this court to conduct a thorough appellate review. It is undisputed that at least fourteen bench conferences-nine of which we do not have full recollection by all parties-written jury instructions, and two juror notes are omitted from the record. There is no verbatim transcript of any dialog between counsel and the court concerning jury instructions. The omitted discussion of jury instructions also impacts other issues appealed. For example, Thrower contends that the circuit court should have instructed the jury on finding Cobb an accomplice as a matter of law. The State argues this issue is not preserved. However, that is impossible to determine since the record does not contain a transcript or reconstruction of the discussion, proffer, if any, or objection to the court's jury-instruction ruling on accomplice as a matter of law. The record's deficiencies remain palpable. We cannot review all the trial court's adverse rulings when we are uncertain what adverse rulings occurred. Nor can we confidently engage in the type of review a life-in-prison case demands. A comprehensive appellate review, particularly in criminal matters, is critical to our justice system. Therefore, we hold that the record cannot be sufficiently settled for this court to conduct its Rule 4-3(i) review, and we must reverse and remand for a new trial. We do not consider the remaining issues on appeal because the record is insufficient. Reverse and remanded.