In all criminal cases in a court of record, the court or judge trying the case shall by order entered of record provide for the recording verbatim of the evidence and incidents of trial either by a court reporter or by mechanical or electronic devices approved by the court. The expense of reporting or recording the trial of criminal cases shall be paid by the Commonwealth out of the appropriation for criminal charges, upon approval of the trial judge. However, if the defendant is convicted, the Commonwealth shall be entitled to receive the amount allocated to the court reporter fund under the fixed felony fee. Localities that maintain mechanical or electronic devices for this purpose shall be entitled to retain their reasonable expenses attributable to the cost of operating and maintaining such equipment. The clerk shall receive the evidence at the time of admission of such evidence by the court and shall maintain control over such evidence until the time such evidence is transferred on appeal, or destroyed or returned in accordance with law.
The costs for the preparation of the transcript of the evidence for an appeal shall be paid by the Commonwealth out of the appropriation for criminal charges.
The reporter or other individual designated to report and record the trial shall file the original shorthand notes or other original records with the clerk of the circuit court who shall preserve them in the public records of the court for not less than five years if an appeal was taken and a transcript was prepared, or ten years if no appeal was taken. The transcript in any case certified by the reporter or other individual designated to report and record the trial shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of the evidence and incidents of trial.
Upon the request of any counsel of record, or of any party not represented by counsel, and upon payment of the reasonable cost thereof, the court reporter covering any proceeding shall provide the requesting party with a copy of the transcript of such proceeding or any requested portion thereof.
The court shall not direct the court reporter to cease recording any portion of the proceeding without the consent of all parties or of their counsel of record.
The administration of this section shall be under the direction of the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Code 1950, § 17-30.1; 1952, c. 642; 1956, c. 699; 1962, c. 419; 1964, c. 533; 1968, c. 358; 1975, cc. 495, 640; 1983, c. 505; 1984, c. 752; 1994, c. 497; 1999, c. 9; 2014, c. 291; 2021, Sp. Sess. I, c. 489.
Notes of Decisions
Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 548 S.E.2d 230 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 6× “Dickerson contends: (1) the trial court erred in denying her motion for a new trial when no verbatim recording of the trial was produced as required by Code § 19.2-165; (2) the trial court denied her, an indigent defendant, her rights to equal protection and due process when it…”
Ohree v. Commonwealth, 494 S.E.2d 484 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “1 (drug enforcement jurisdiction fee), § 19.2-165 (recording fee), and § 19.2-368.”
Crumble v. Commonwealth, 343 S.E.2d 359 (Va. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “pellant asserts two issues on this appeal: (a) whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence at trial to sustain the convictions; and (b) whether the trial court erred by allegedly refusing to allow defense trial counsel to give a closing argument on appellant’s behalf,…”
Saunders v. Commonwealth, 562 S.E.2d 367 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “Code § 19.2-165. 4 After finding no significant errors related to the “factualness” of the translation, the circuit court admitted it.”
Jones v. Commonwealth, 513 S.E.2d 431 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “” *520 Code § 19.2-165. Notwithstanding the presumption of accuracy afforded by the Code, we find the evidence is sufficient to conclude the record inaccurately represents the Commonwealth’s proffer and to further conclude the Commonwealth proffered a factual basis in support of…”
Williams v. Commonwealth, 375 S.E.2d 364 (Va. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “" The form cites Rule 5:9(a) and Code § 19.2-165 as authority. To the extent that the form is based on the former version of Rule 5:9(a), which dealt with the record on appeal, it is outdated and should no longer be used.”
Brittingham v. Commonwealth, 394 S.E.2d 336 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 6× “On appeal, Brittingham contends: (1) the trial court erred by refusing to allow him to call the assistant Commonwealth’s attorney as a witness; (2) he was denied his right to be present at all stages of the revocation hearing; (3) the trial court violated Code § 19.2-165 by…”
Gibbs v. Commonwealth, 432 S.E.2d 514 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “The defendant also challenges his convictions because the trial court, without the defendant’s consent, directed the court reporter to cease recording the testimony of a witness being heard out of the presence of the jury.”
Smith v. Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 540 S.E.2d 878 (Va. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Although not cited by either party, we begin that analysis with the provisions of Code § 19.2-165, which are particularly relevant to the inquiry sub judice.”
Turner v. Commonwealth, 712 S.E.2d 28 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “” *576 However, the Commonwealth was unable to obtain a certified copy of the transcript that satisfied Code § 19.2-165. 1 After another recess in order for the Commonwealth to locate the court reporter, the Commonwealth was unable to bring the court reporter into the circuit…”
Herbert Cottrell Braxton v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0815182 (Va. Ct. App. June 25, 2019).
· cites it 4× “” He further states that the trial court failed to furnish a transcript as required by Code § 19.2-165 (“the trial court shall, upon the motion of counsel for the defendant, order the evidence transcribed for such appeal .”
Dereck Earl Majette v. Commonwealth, No. 1400011 (Va. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2002).
· cites it 2× “Mississippi, 410 7 Code § 19.2-165 provides, in part, "The transcript in any case certified by the reporter .”
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.