noting that the defendant did not request a court reporter under 52.046(a) and, regardless, “even if Rule 13.1 does impose a preliminary burden on the trial court to ensure the presence of a court reporter at all proceedings, our case law also imposes an additional, independent burden on the appealing party to make a record demonstrating that error occurred in the trial court. This includes a burden to object when the official court reporter is not present, as he is required to be under Rule 13.1, in order to preserve any error that may occur for appeal.”
How later courts described this case
- noting that the defendant did not request a court reporter under 52.046(a) and, regardless, “even if Rule 13.1 does impose a preliminary burden on the trial court to ensure the presence of a court reporter at all proceedings, our case law also imposes an additional, independent burden on the appealing party to make a record demonstrating that error occurred in the trial court. This includes a burden to object when the official court reporter is not present, as he is required to be under Rule 13.1, in order to preserve any error that may occur for appeal.”
- noting that the defendant did not request a court reporter under 52.046(a
- noting that appealing party has an obligation to make a record demonstrating that error occurred in the trial court, including an obligation to object that the court reporter was not present, to preserve any error for appeal
- stating that appealing party must “make a record demonstrating that error occurred in the trial court”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JOHNSON, J.,
filed a concurring opinion.
From the record, it appears that, four and one-half months after appellant arrived in Dallas County after extradition pursuant to IADA and with the IADA clock ticking, the state chose to reindict appellant and to request a continuance because of that reindictment. The trial court granted the state’s request, thereby pushing the beginning of the trial well past the time limits of the IADA.
In this Court, the state complains that the court of appeals erroneously placed on the trial court the burden of making a record of its reasoning in finding good cause that justified a second continuance. Because the second state continuance appears to have been granted because of a new indictment, determining whether the allegations in the new indictment were sufficiently different so as to necessarily require reworking of the state’s case requires comparison of the two indictments. The burden of making a record that per *79 mits such a comparison rests with the party who opposed the continuance — appellant. The record includes only the second indictment. Appellant did not carry his burden of providing an adequate record on appeal and so must bear the consequences.
I therefore join the opinion of the Court.