BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Martha M. Escutia, Chair
2001-2002 Regular Session
SB 1371 S
Senator Morrow B
As Introduced
Hearing Date: March 19, 2002 1
Code of Civil Procedure; Government Code; 3
Penal Code 7
GMO:sr 1
SUBJECT
Court Reporting
DESCRIPTION
This bill would consolidate two court reporting statutes,
clarify that a transcript in longhand is to be provided to
a nonparty if he or she is entitled to receive the
transcript whether or not he or she was entitled to attend
the proceeding, and make other technical nonsubstantive
changes to the court reporting statutes.
BACKGROUND
This bill is part of a package of bills sponsored by the
California Law Revision Commission to clean up the codes
after trial court unification.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law governs the use of a court reporter in an
unlimited civil case or felony case. [Code of Civil
Procedure Section 269(a).] In these cases, a shorthand
reporter must be used on order of the court, at the request
of the district attorney or the attorney for the defendant
in a felony case.
Existing law governs the use of a court reporter in a
limited civil case or a misdemeanor or infraction case.
[Code of Civil Procedure Section 274c.] In these cases, a
shorthand reporter must be used upon order of the court.
(more)
SB 1371 (Morrow)
Page 2
This bill would consolidate these two statutes, by
broadening Section 269(a) to make it applicable to all
limited and unlimited civil cases, felony, misdemeanor and
infraction cases and eliminating Section 274c.
The bill would make other technical nonsubstantive changes.
COMMENT
1. Need for the bill
The California Law Revision Commission was charged by the
Legislature to examine the statutes affected by the trial
court unification law, enacted in 1996. In its 1998
report, Trial Court Unification: Revision of Codes, 28
Cal. L. Revision Comm'n Reports 51, 86, the Commission
recommended further study of the role of court reporters
in a county in which the courts have unified. This bill,
a result of that recommendation, would consolidate
duplicative provisions relating to court reporters,
reorganize others, and delete references in the
Government Code to court reporters used in municipal
courts (which have been eliminated by trial court
unification).
2. Consolidation of two statutes requiring court
reporters
According to the California Law Revision Commission, this
bill would consolidate two unnecessarily duplicative
provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure relating to the
use of court reporters. The statutes are essentially the
same, except that in addition to the court itself, the
district attorney or the defendant's attorney may request
the use of a court reporter in felony cases. This bill
would simply expand Code of Civil Procedure Section
269(a) to include both unlimited and limited civil cases
and would recast its provisions to accommodate the use of
court reporters in both felony and misdemeanor cases.
Section 274c would then be repealed.
References to Code of Civil Procedure Section 274c in the
Government Code would also be eliminated, such as the
reference in Government Code Section 72197 relating to
SB 1371 (Morrow)
Page 3
the temporary reassignment of court reporters from
superior courts to municipal courts. This provision was
made obsolete by trial court unification.
3. Other technical changes to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 269(a)
Changes to the language of the proposed Section 269(a)
would do the following:
a) refer to official reporters "pro tempore," as well as
official reporters, as is
already done in other code provisions;
b) require that arguments made by "the attorneys" be
included in the
transcript, rather than just arguments made by "the
prosecuting attorney,"
thus making the statute consistent with other
statutes and with existing
practice;
c) change "district attorney" to "prosecuting attorney"
in reference to the
request for a court reporter (in some cases the
Attorney General is the
prosecutor, not the district attorney);
d) clarify that the right to a court reporter attaches
to the proceeding and not
to the type of judicial officer presiding over the
proceeding (to
accommodate hearings conducted by commissioners);
e) clarify that a pro per defendant may also make the
request for a court
reporter, rather than only the attorney for the
defendant;
f) clarify that a nonparty is generally entitled to a
transcript, whether entitled
to attend the proceeding or not, making the statute
consistent with practice
and with constitutional restraints (a nonparty is
entitled to a transcript of a
SB 1371 (Morrow)
Page 4
proceeding open to the public, a proceeding that was
erroneously closed,
or a proceeding that was properly closed, once the
reasons for closure are
no longer viable);
g) move references to a computer-readable transcript to
a separate code
provision, and clarify that availability of a
computer-readable version of a
transcript depends on whether the requester is
entitled to a hard copy
version.
4. Other technical nonsubstantive changes
The bill would make other technical, nonsubstantive
changes to Penal Code and Government Code provisions
relating to transcription technology and fees, and
transcription of motions to suppress in felony and
misdemeanor cases in light of trial court unification.
Support: California Court Reporters Association; California
Official Court
Reporters Association
Opposition: None Known
HISTORY
Source: California Law Revision Commission
Related Pending Legislation: SB 1316 (Committee on
Judiciary) is another CLRC bill
related to statutes made obsolete by
trial court restructuring.
Provisions of SB 1371 that may appear
in SB 1316 will be deleted from SB
1316.
Prior Legislation: None Known
**************