McAlister v. McAlister

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

McAlister v. McAlister

187 S.E.2d 449, 14 N.C. App. 159, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2067

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 29, 1972

Docket7219DC103

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 187 S.E.2d 449 (McAlister v. McAlister) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McAlister v. McAlister, 187 S.E.2d 449, 14 N.C. App. 159, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2067 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The only issue raised in this Court is whether it was error for the trial judge to deny defendant’s motion to have the record taken by an official court reporter.

The defendant argues that it was error to deny his motion for a reporter and that the absence of a reporter impaired his right of appeal.

The North Carolina General Statutes require only that “ [c] ourt-reporting personnel shall be utilized, if available, for the reporting of civil trials in the district court.” G.S. 7A-198 (emphasis added). If a reporter is not available in any county, other means may be employed to take the testimony. Ibid. The defendant made no motion that any other means be employed when his motion for a court reporter was denied.

There are no cases on this point in North Carolina. Other jurisdictions have, however, held that it is not error for the trial judge to fail to appoint a stenographer to take down the testimony where no stenographer is available. Lindsey v. Caston, *161 118 S.W. 2d 843, Tex. Civ. App. (1938) ; Universal Life Ins. Co. v. Larremore, 32 S.W. 2d 964, Tex. Civ. App. (1930). If the case is one in which a court reporter’s services can be dispensed with without prejudice, and no reporter can be found, it is not error to refuse a motion for the services of a reporter. 53 Am. Jur., Trial, § 30; Frost v. Witter, 132 Cal. 421, 64 P. 705 (1901).

A hearing of this nature may be conducted on affidavits only and without oral testimony. Miller v. Miller, 270 N.C. 140, 153 S.E. 2d 854 (1967). Nevertheless, oral testimony was introduced in the instant case. Even so the absence of stenographic notes is not always fatal. State v. Sanders, 280 N.C. 67, 185 S.E. 2d 137 (1971); State v. Allen, 4 N.C. App. 612, 167 S.E. 2d 505 (1969).

The defendant has not shown any prejudice by the denial of his motion. A new trial will be granted only for prejudicial error. 1 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error, § 47.

In the trial of this case we find

No error.

Judges Britt and Graham concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The only issue raised in this Court is whether it was error for the trial judge to deny defendant’s motion to have the record taken by an official court reporter.

The defendant argues that it was error to deny his motion for a reporter and that the absence of a reporter impaired his right of appeal.

The North Carolina General Statutes require only that “ [c] ourt-reporting personnel shall be utilized, if available, for the reporting of civil trials in the district court.” G.S. 7A-198 (emphasis added). If a reporter is not available in any county, other means may be employed to take the testimony. Ibid. The defendant made no motion that any other means be employed when his motion for a court reporter was denied.

There are no cases on this point in North Carolina. Other jurisdictions have, however, held that it is not error for the trial judge to fail to appoint a stenographer to take down the testimony where no stenographer is available. Lindsey v. Caston, *161 118 S.W. 2d 843, Tex. Civ. App. (1938) ; Universal Life Ins. Co. v. Larremore, 32 S.W. 2d 964, Tex. Civ. App. (1930). If the case is one in which a court reporter’s services can be dispensed with without prejudice, and no reporter can be found, it is not error to refuse a motion for the services of a reporter. 53 Am. Jur., Trial, § 30; Frost v. Witter, 132 Cal. 421, 64 P. 705 (1901).

A hearing of this nature may be conducted on affidavits only and without oral testimony. Miller v. Miller, 270 N.C. 140, 153 S.E. 2d 854 (1967). Nevertheless, oral testimony was introduced in the instant case. Even so the absence of stenographic notes is not always fatal. State v. Sanders, 280 N.C. 67, 185 S.E. 2d 137 (1971); State v. Allen, 4 N.C. App. 612, 167 S.E. 2d 505 (1969).

The defendant has not shown any prejudice by the denial of his motion. A new trial will be granted only for prejudicial error. 1 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error, § 47.

In the trial of this case we find

No error.

Judges Britt and Graham concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.E.2d 449, 14 N.C. App. 159, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcalister-v-mcalister-ncctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack