Court Opinion

ID: 9632367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:12:09.488974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:13.986407
License: Public Domain

FRANK C. PRICE, Justice (Assigned),
dissenting on motion for rehearing.
On September 1, 1997, rule 13.1 of the amended Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure took effect. It provides in relevant part as follows:
13.1 Duties of Court Reporters and Recorders
The official court reporter or court recorder must:
(a) attend court sessions and make a full record of the proceedings unless excused by agreement of the parties; ....
Tex.R.App. P. 13.1(a). The notes and comments following rule 13.1(a) state:
Paragraph 13.1(a) merges paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of former Rule 11 and now requires the reporter to make a record of voir dire and closing arguments unless excused by agreement of the parties.
Tex.R.App. P. 13.1, notes & cmts.
Formerly, this issue was controlled by rule 11(a)(1) and (2) (repealed 1997), of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.1 Former rule 11 provided as follows:
Rule 11. Duties of Court Reporters
(a) The duties of official court reporters shall be performed under supervision of the presiding judge of the court and shall include, but not be limited to:
(1) attending all sessions of court and making a full record of the evidence when requested by the judge or any party to a case, together with all objections to the admissibility of the evidence, the rulings and remarks of the court thereon;
(2) making a full record of jury arguments and voir dire examination when requested to do so by the attorney for any party to a case, together with all objections to such arguments, the rulings and remarks of the court thereon;....
Former Tex.R.App. P. 11(a)(1), (2).
Resolution of the Differences
In analyzing the language of former rule 11 and present rule 13.1(a), I find there is a procedural difference regarding who has the responsibility to insure the presence of the court reporter. Former rule 11 put this burden on the parties, either to request the presence of the reporter and/or object to the reporter’s absence. Rule 13.1(a), on the other hand, places an independent duty on the trial judge to take the initiative to implement the procedure to require the presence of a reporter unless such reporter is excused by agreement of the parties.
The majority mischaracterizes the difference between the old and the new rule as one of substance. They maintain the change enlarges or modifies the substantive rights of a litigant, thus, violating the delegated authority to promulgate rules given to the Court of Criminal Appeals by the legislature. Contrary to the majority’s assertions, the court, by enacting rule 13.1(a), did not create a substantive change from former rule 11. The substantive *91matter of both rules is a litigant’s right to a court reporter. Rule 18.1(a) merely altered the procedural requisites for providing a court reporter.
It is interesting to note that the majority cites the Court of Criminal Appeals’s decision in Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 735-36 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), as an explanation of the court’s authority to promulgate a comprehensive set of appellate rules in criminal cases and how the legislature expressly provided that these rules could not abridge, enlarge, or modify the substantive rights of a litigant. The majority then turns around and accuses the court of creating rule 13.1(a) in violation of its own decision. Surely the court was aware of Lyon v. State when it enacted rule 13.1(a) and, thus, considered the distinction between former rule 11 and current rule 13.1(a) to be only a procedural variance.
Are we to believe that the Court of Criminal Appeals is going to change the procedural requisites of rule 11 into the more streamlined provisions of rule 13.1(a) and require the same body of case law to control its misapplication on appeal? If that is true, then why change the rule? I cannot imagine the court announcing that it is going to change a rule that will have no effect on our system of jurisprudence.
The language of rule 13.1(a) is clear and unambiguous and should be given its literal meaning. A fair reading of the rule’s plain language gives a right to a litigant that must be implemented by the system unless expressly waived. As such, rule 13.1(a) does not create a right that is subject to forfeiture through procedural default by failing to object or request or utilizing some other method to bring it to the trial court’s attention. Therefore, the failure of the judge, under rule 13.1(a), to insure the presence of a court reporter to make a full and complete record of all trial proceedings is an error that can be urged on appeal whether or not it was first urged in the trial court. Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 280 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).
Conclusion
My disagreement with the majority today is the fact they refuse to follow the plain language of the new rule 13.1(a) governing the court reporter’s duty to record proceedings. Thus, I respectfully dissent.
Justices MIRABAL, O’CONNOR, and ANDELL join this dissenting opinion.

. Tex.R.App. P. 11, 49 Tex. B.J. 561 (Tex. Sup. Ct. and Tex.Crim.App.1986).