“Without question cumulative error may assemble in such proportion that reversal is required.” (citations omitted)
How later courts described this case
- “Without question cumulative error may assemble in such proportion that reversal is required.” (citations omitted)
- emphasizing the unique qualities of videotapes
- although the decision in that case is, at best, splintered
- videotaped pre-arrest interview held to be testimonial
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
THOMAS, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I join with Justice Rooney in his dissenting opinion. In the response to that dissenting opinion the majority opinion states that it presumes that the accused videotape was sent to the jury so that it might be viewed again in the course of the jury’s deliberations. The record does not encompass any objection by the appellant to the videotape being furnished to the jury with the other exhibits nor does the record contain any indication that the jury did view it during the course of its deliberations. The appellant has the responsibility of furnishing a record upon which any issue can be decided. Salt River Enterprises, Inc. v. Heiner, Wyo., 663 P.2d 518 (1983); Scherling v. Kilgore, Wyo., 599 P.2d 1352 (1979). *754 In the face of a silent record I cannot agree that this court is justified in speculating about what occurred in the course of the jury’s deliberations.