Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision In accordance with Valle and Polasek, the court concludes that appellant did not preserve any alleged error arising from any failure of the court reporter. FACTS:As two police officers were leaving a scene where they arrested two suspects, they received a call to pick up a juvenile suspect in an aggravated assault case. One of the previously arrested suspects told the officers the juvenile lived in apartment 196 of the same complex where they had just been caught. Later that morning, the officers returned to apartment 196, where Gaynette Marie Washington opened the door. Washington initially denied knowing the juvenile, but then later said she knew her but hadn’t seen her that day and she wasn’t at the apartment. While the officers looked at Washington’s identification, they observed a man leave one of the apartment bedrooms and asked if he knew the juvenile. The man told them the juvenile was in the bedroom, which she was. Washington was arrested for making false statements to a police officer. She was convicted and sentenced to 45 days in jail. On appeal, Washington claims she is entitled to a new trial because the appellate record does not contain the voir dire proceedings. She also challenges the propriety of the state’s closing argument, where the prosecutor said Washington could have “closed that door and the officers would have had to leave,” and she challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court confirms that the appellate record does not include a transcript of the voir dire proceedings and that nothing in the record reflects that the parties agreed to waive recording the proceedings. The court points out additionally, however, that nothing indicates it was the court reporter’s fault. The court reviews Tanguma v. State, 47 S.W.3d 663 (Tex.App. � Corpus Christi 2001, pet. ref’d), and Polasek v. State, 16 S.W.3d 82 (Tex.App. � Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet ref’d), both of which recognize that T.R.App.P. 13.1(a) requires the official court reporter to attend court sessions and make a full record of the proceedings unless excused by agreement of the parties. Washington relies on Tanguma, which said it was error (though not a constitutional error) for the court reporter not to record and transcribe bench conferences without consent of the parties. The court points out that in Tanguma a reason was given for why the court reporter omitted certain portions of the proceeding (the reporter said they were not requested), but no reason was given here for why voir dire was not in the reporter’s record. Tanguma also ignored Polasek. Polasek ruled that Government Code �52.046(a), which conditions a court reporter’s duties on a request, governed when in conflict with Rule 13.1(a). Furthermore, Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003), disapproved of Tanguma. The record does not support Washington’s contention that the lack of the voir dire proceedings record resulted from the court reporter’s disregard of official duties. Section 52.046(a) does not include among the court reporter’s official duties the voir dire proceedings. Nor does the record show that Washington requested that the court reporter transcribe the voir dire proceedings. Finally, Washington did not bring the alleged omission to the trial court’s attention in time for the trial court to fix it. With respect to the state’s closing argument, the court rules that any error in the argument was cured by the judge’s instruction to stay within the record. Finally, the court rules the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the conviction. “The jury was entitled to infer, from [Washington's] initial denial that she knew [the juvenile] and her later denial that [the juvenile] was present in the home, that [Washington] made a false statement that was material to the officers’ investigating the aggravated assault case against [the juvenile].” OPINION:Alcala, J.; Radack, C.J., Keyes and Alcala, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.