Court Opinion

ID: 9632366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:12:09.485282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:13.984146
License: Public Domain

SAM ROBERTSON, Justice (Retired),
concurring on motion for rehearing.
I concur in the en banc opinion authored by Justice Taft. However, believing that the construction of rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure is governed by basic and well-established law, I write this brief concurrence to state my views.
In 1939, the legislature gave the Supreme Court of Texas the authority to promulgate rules in civil matters, so long as they did “not abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of any litigant.” See former Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 1731a, § 2 (repealed and codified in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.004(a) (Vernon 1988)).1 In Few v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co., 463 S.W.2d 424 (Tex.1971), the supreme court, faced with a conflict between a rule, promulgated by the supreme court, and a statute, passed by the legislature, stated that “when a rule of the court conflicts with a legislative enactment, the rule must yield.” Id. at 425.
In 1985, the legislature codified the Government Code and included therein as section 22.004 the provisions of article 1731a. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.004 (Vernon 1988). In 1987, the legislature enacted, as part of the Government Code, section 22.108. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.108 (Vernon 1988). In language almost identical to that of section 22.004, the legislature gave to the Court of Criminal Appeals rulemaking authority relative to “posttrial, appellate and review procedure” in criminal cases. It seems clear to me that the construction of section 22.108 must be consistent with the supreme court’s construction of section 22.004.
The statutes governing court reporters were codified as a part of the Government Code. Section 52.046 provides, in part, that the court reporter, upon request, shall record all proceedings of the cause. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 52.046 (Vernon 1998). Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, as promulgated by the su*90preme court and the Court of Criminal Appeals, provides the court reporter must “make a full record of the proceedings unless excused by agreement of the parties.” Thus, the question of whether the duty of the court reporter to record the proceedings depends upon a request presents a conflict between the statute and the rule. If the rule is construed so that it is inconsistent with the statute, the rule must fall.
Accordingly, I concur in the judgment of affirmance.
Justice COHEN joins this concurring opinion.

. Act of May 15, 1939, 46th Leg., R.S., ch. 25, § 2, 1939 Tex. Gen. Laws 201.