(a) Court-reporting personnel shall be utilized, if available, for the reporting of civil trials in the district court. If court reporters are not available in any county, electronic or other mechanical devices shall be provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts upon request of the chief district judge.
(b) The Administrative Office of the Courts shall from time to time investigate the state of the art and techniques of recording testimony, and shall provide such electronic or mechanical devices as are found to be most efficient for this purpose.
(c) If an electronic or other mechanical device is utilized, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the superior court or some other person designated by him to operate the device while a trial is in progress, and the clerk shall thereafter preserve the record thus produced, which may be transcribed, as required, by any person designated by the Administrative Office of the Courts. If stenotype, shorthand, or stenomask equipment is used, the original tapes, notes, discs, or other records are the property of the State, and the clerk shall keep them in his custody.
(d) Reporting of any trial may be waived by consent of the parties.
(e) Reporting will not be provided in ex parte or emergency hearings before a judge pursuant to Chapter 50B or 50C of the General Statutes, trials before magistrates, or in hearings to adjudicate and dispose of infractions in the district court.
(f) Appointment of a reporter or reporters for district court proceedings in each district court district shall be made by the chief district judge for that district. The compensation and allowances of reporters in each district shall be fixed by the chief district judge, within limits determined by the Administrative Officer of the Courts, and paid by the State.
(g) A party to a civil trial in district court may request a private agreement from the opposing party or parties to share equally in the cost of a court reporter to be selected from a list provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts. If the opposing party does not consent to share this cost, the requesting party may nevertheless pay to have a court reporter present to record the trial and, in the event that the opposing party appeals the case, that party shall reimburse the party providing the court reporter in full for the costs incurred for the court reporter's services and transcripts.
In the event that the recording device in a civil trial conducted without a court reporter fails for any reason to provide a reasonably accurate record of the trial for purposes of appeal, then the trial judge shall grant a motion for a new trial made by a losing party whose request pursuant to this section to share the cost of a court reporter was not consented to by the opposing party. (1965, c. 310, s. 1; 1969, c. 1190, s. 18; 1985, c. 764, s. 13; 1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 852, s. 17; 1987, c. 384, s. 2; 1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 1037, s. 19; 1996, 2nd Ex. Sess., c. 18, s. 22.11; 2015-173, s. 5.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2021 · leading case:
Stancill v. Stancill, 773 S.E.2d 890 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015).
Stancill v. Stancill, 773 S.E.2d 890 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 35× “Accordingly, we must examine N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7A-198 to determine if the trial court erred in failing to record the ex parte DVPO hearing.”
Coppley v. Coppley, 496 S.E.2d 611 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 11× “We answered in the affirmative, stating, “We strongly disapprove of the failure to comply with the mandate of G.S. 7A-198.” Id. at 354 , 374 S.E.2d at 469 .”
Miller v. Miller, 374 S.E.2d 467 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 8× “Further, we hold that a hearing on a motion in the cause requesting a modification of a child custody order is a "trial" within the meaning of G.S. 7A-198. Defendant is correct in her contention that G.”
In Re Nolen, 453 S.E.2d 220 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “After the children testified, recording of the hearing resumed. At the request of respondent, the court summarized for the record the children’s testimony.”
In Re Clark, 582 S.E.2d 657 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “2d 467, 469 (1988) (appeal dismissed where party alleged failure to record proceedings under former section 7A-198, now section 7B-806, but failed to assert prejudice and had not attempted to reconstruct the proceedings through a narration of the evidence).”
Spencer v. Spencer, 575 S.E.2d 780 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “In order to obtain a transcript of the proceeding, the audio tape must be transcribed.”
Holterman v. Holterman, 488 S.E.2d 265 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “Plaintiff raises this issue in two ways: (1) by arguing that, since the trial was not recorded, no one accurately remembers her testimony that all of these items were purchased with her various inheritances and were never intended to be a gift to defendant; and (2) by arguing…”
Matter of Caldwell, 330 S.E.2d 513 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-198 (1981). Absent contemporaneous objection to the use of tape devices, to show prejudicial error an appellant must at least indicate the import of some specific testimony or other proceeding that has been lost.”
Pollock v. Parnell, 484 S.E.2d 864 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “This has become the common practice in all district courts and was the practice employed in Johnston County District Court at the trial of this matter.”
McAlister v. McAlister, 187 S.E.2d 449 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).
“” G.S. 7A-198 (emphasis added). If a reporter is not available in any county, other means may be employed to take the testimony.”
Howell v. Howell, 198 S.E.2d 462 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, G.S. 7A-198 (a) states: “Court-reporting personnel shall be utilized, if available, for the reporting, of civil trials in the district court.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-198(a) — 5 cases
Coppley v. Coppley, 496 S.E.2d 611 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998).
“We answered in the affirmative, stating, “We strongly disapprove of the failure to comply with the mandate of G.S. 7A-198.” Id. at 354 , 374 S.E.2d at 469 .”
Spencer v. Spencer, 575 S.E.2d 780 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
“In order to obtain a transcript of the proceeding, the audio tape must be transcribed.”
Holterman v. Holterman, 488 S.E.2d 265 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997).
“Plaintiff raises this issue in two ways: (1) by arguing that, since the trial was not recorded, no one accurately remembers her testimony that all of these items were purchased with her various inheritances and were never intended to be a gift to defendant; and (2) by arguing…”
Pollock v. Parnell, 484 S.E.2d 864 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997).
“This has become the common practice in all district courts and was the practice employed in Johnston County District Court at the trial of this matter.”
In Re Kmf, 666 S.E.2d 891 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008).
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-198(d) — 1 case
Holterman v. Holterman, 488 S.E.2d 265 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997).
“Plaintiff raises this issue in two ways: (1) by arguing that, since the trial was not recorded, no one accurately remembers her testimony that all of these items were purchased with her various inheritances and were never intended to be a gift to defendant; and (2) by arguing…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-198(e) — 1 case
Stancill v. Stancill, 773 S.E.2d 890 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015).
“Accordingly, we must examine N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7A-198 to determine if the trial court erred in failing to record the ex parte DVPO hearing.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.