Opinion ID: 2584774
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Record Correction

Text: On February 24, 1998, the trial court instructed the jury at the guilt phase. The reporter's transcript of that proceeding indicates that in the course of giving the jury instruction on special circumstances the court stated: You must not decide separately each special circumstance alleged in this case. If you cannot agree as to both of the special circumstances but can agree as to one, you must make your finding as to the one upon which you do agree. (Italics added.) The jury was also given written copies of the instructions for its use during deliberations. Sometime after the trial, however, those written instructions were lost, and they are not part of the record before us. On November 1, 2002, the trial court held a record certification proceeding. The same judge who had presided at trial presided at the certification proceeding, which was attended by the prosecutor, the trial defense attorney, the appellate defense attorney, and a deputy attorney general. Among the court's proposed corrections to the record, which were faxed to counsel before the proceeding, was to strike the word not from the sentence in the reporter's transcript that read, You must not decide separately each special circumstance alleged in this case. After appellate defense counsel objected to this proposed change in the reporter's transcript, the trial prosecutor said that he would generally follow along the reading of instructions and that if I overheard a jury instruction which I believe was incorrectly being read ... it would be my practice to approach and ask the court to correct that. Then, after having quoted the statement at issue here, the trial prosecutor said he did not ask the court for any correction. The court commented: I'm aware of it. It's an absolute mistake by the court reporter, as clear as it can be, as are these others. The court went on to say: I would never read it that way. I never did. The written instruction, I guarantee, didn't say that. That's why I'm correcting it because it's erroneous and it is not appropriate to have an erroneous record go up. [¶] I'm as sure of that as I am that I'm sitting here breathing today. After the court noted that people do misspeak on occasion, but I didn't on that occasion, appellate defense counsel observed that this isn't a grammatical error. The court responded: It is an error nonetheless, counsel. That's an error and the court is about to correct it over your objection. The court expressed its certainty that these are errors of transcription, and it had the record reflect that pattern jury instructions were used in this case. (11) Defendant contends the trial court's correction of the record was based on speculation violating his right to due process. We disagree. As defendant concedes, a trial court has a duty to correct the record. ( Williams v. Davis (1946) 27 Cal.2d 746, 753 [167 P.2d 189].) A trial judge's own memory is among the considerations that may be taken into account in making corrections to the trial record. (See Marks v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 176, 196 [115 Cal.Rptr.2d 674, 38 P.3d 512].) Here, as discussed above, the judge was certain that the court reporter had made an error in transcription, and the judge's correction reflected the language of the standard jury instruction on special circumstances. (CALJIC No. 8.80.1 (1996 ed.).) Likewise misplaced is defendant's contention that the trial judge's correction of the trial record was invalid because the judge bypassed proper record settlement procedures. In support, defendant cites Marks v. Superior Court, supra, 27 Cal.4th 176. That case involved the question of whether the proper procedures were followed in the preparation of a settled statement, which is used when a portion of the proceedings was not reported or cannot be transcribed. ( Id. at pp. 192-193; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.130(g), 8.137; id., former rule 7.) At issue here was the making of a correction to a transcript of trial proceedings (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.619), not an effort, as in Marks, to fill in gaps in a record through a settled statement. Also, in Marks the trial judge effectively eliminated the parties' participation in the process by making the judge's own settled statement that was not subject to negotiations. (27 Cal.4th at pp. 194-195.) By contrast, although here defendant and the court reporter were not at the record correction proceeding, present were the judge who had presided at trial, the trial attorneys for both the defense and the prosecution, as well as the appellate attorneys for both parties, and they participated or had an opportunity to participate in the process. We also reject defendant's assertion that under People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 468-469 [48 Cal.Rptr.2d 525, 907 P.2d 373], we must remand the matter for additional proceedings to settle the record. In Lucas there was a remand because there had been no proceeding in the trial court to correct the record; here there was such a proceeding.