Court Opinion

ID: 9665479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:49:21.784869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:15.937857
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
CATES, Presiding Judge.
The State in its application says, in part:
“Appellee respectfully submits that this Honorable Court erred in its opinion of October 1, 1975 in which it held that the trial judge absolutely prohibited the taking of notes by the unofficial qualified court reporter. At page 291 of the transcript the trial judge said:
‘MR. LIVINGSTON: Does the motion also include the request that we be permitted to have a qualified reporter take it, outside the Official Court Reporter?
‘THE COURT: If you want to do that, I have no objection to it; but if there is any attempt made to include it in the official transcript, then there would be objections.’
“A re-reading of this portion of the record clearly shows that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in the instant case.”
The above colloquy between Mr. Livingston and the court is correct as far as it goes. However, immediately after that we find (R. 291):
“MR. LIVINGSTON: Then Your Hon- or would not consider it?
“THE COURT: I would not allow it to become a part of the proper transcript, because it’s not authorized by law.
“MR. LIVINGSTON: Then there would be no need in doing it. We respectfully except to Your Honor’s ruling.”
If the trial judge in advance announces that he would exclude (as he has power to do under Michie’s Code, T. 7, § 827(la) in the settlement of the trial transcript) then to have brought in an unofficial stenographer would have been futile. Therefore, we consider that the defendant was effectively denied the services of a private reporter, certainly for the purposes of preserving a record on appeal.
Opinion extended.
Application overruled.
All the Judges concur.