Chavers v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chavers v. State

775 So. 2d 328, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7847, 2000 WL 801148

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 23, 2000

DocketNo. 2D99-239

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 775 So. 2d 328 (Chavers v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chavers v. State, 775 So. 2d 328, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7847, 2000 WL 801148 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Judge.

Charles Chavers, III, appeals his convictions for attempted robbery and criminal mischief. We have considered his issues on appeal but find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.

In this case, Mr. Chavers gave a recorded statement to the police. After introducing the tape into evidence, the State played it for the jury. The court reporter, however, failed to transcribe the tape. In Jackson v. State, 723 So.2d 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), where the trial court had directed the court reporter not to transcribe a taped statement played for the jury, this court noted that such an omission could require reversal in a different case. See also Lawrence v. State, 632 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (holding that court reporter was obligated to transcribe tapes played during trial, but noting that tape itself was best evidence). The record has been supplemented with the tape itself, which we have reviewed, and we affirm. We write to remind trial courts and court reporters of the serious obligation for a complete record of criminal proceedings.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BLUE, Judge.

Charles Chavers, III, appeals his convictions for attempted robbery and criminal mischief. We have considered his issues on appeal but find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.

In this case, Mr. Chavers gave a recorded statement to the police. After introducing the tape into evidence, the State played it for the jury. The court reporter, however, failed to transcribe the tape. In Jackson v. State, 723 So.2d 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), where the trial court had directed the court reporter not to transcribe a taped statement played for the jury, this court noted that such an omission could require reversal in a different case. See also Lawrence v. State, 632 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (holding that court reporter was obligated to transcribe tapes played during trial, but noting that tape itself was best evidence). The record has been supplemented with the tape itself, which we have reviewed, and we affirm. We write to remind trial courts and court reporters of the serious obligation for a complete record of criminal proceedings.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

775 So. 2d 328, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7847, 2000 WL 801148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chavers-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack