Opinion ID: 2625491
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Reconstructing the Record

Text: [¶ 7] During the pendency of this appeal, Ms. White filed two motions with this Court. She requested an extension of time so that she could supplement or reconstruct the record, and also asked us simply to add documents and other evidence to the record. Ms. White argued that the record does not contain critical information that was presented at her third contempt hearing because the proceedings were not recorded. We denied both motions because Ms. White failed to prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings pursuant to W.R.A.P. 3.03. [3] In fact, in Ms. White's second motion, it became clear that she did not intend to create such a statement. Instead, she sought unilaterally to add documents and other evidence to the record [4] that may or may not have been presented at her hearing. [¶ 8] We affirm our decision not to allow Ms. White to supplement or reconstruct the record. We have said that a  pro se litigant is entitled to some leniency from the stringent standards applied to formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. However, there must be a reasonable adherence to the procedural rules and requirements of the court. Young v. State, 2002 WY 68, ¶ 9, 46 P.3d 295, 297 (Wyo.2002). W.R.A.P. 3.03 was designed to avoid the situation we now face. An opposing party must be allowed to review  and the district court approvea statement of the evidence or proceedings before it becomes part of the record. This assures us that, on appeal, the evidence in the record transmitted to us is accurate. When a party seeks to reconstruct the record ex parte, no such assurance exists and we will not allow such supplementation in the instant case. Because she made no attempt to supplement the record in the district court according to W.R.A.P. 3.03, we will affirm our earlier orders prohibiting Ms. White's attempt to construct a record.