Karen Wooding Bryant v. State, 464 S.W.3d 99

Appellant was convicted by a jury of misdemeanor assault of a family member; sentence probated and appellant appealed.
The trial reporter, Sondra Humphrey, failed to file the reporter’s record by the deadline and subsequently could not produce a complete transcribable record; audio and notes were incomplete or inaudible.
The Fourteenth Court abated the appeal and assigned Judge Sherman A. Ross to conduct hearings concerning Humphrey’s missing records and efforts to reconstruct them; another reporter attempted but could not recreate a full record.
Judge Ross found Humphrey noncredible, in contempt, and concluded her notes/audio were incomplete and irretrievable; he found the missing record necessary to the appeal and recommended a new trial under Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(f).
The appellate court applied the governing harm/necessity analysis for lost reporter’s records and agreed the record was irretrievably lost and necessary for meaningful appellate review.
The court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether appellant timely requested a reporter’s record	Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and thus timely sought the record	State did not dispute timeliness	Timeliness satisfied — appellant timely requested the reporter’s record
Whether appellant was at fault for the missing record	Appellant bore no fault for Humphrey’s failure to file/transcribe the record	State argued efforts to reconstruct were made and record loss may not warrant new trial	Trial court found appellant not at fault; appellate court agreed
Whether the missing portion is necessary to resolve the appeal	Appellant asserted absence of entire trial record prevents meaningful appellate review (e.g., sufficiency claims)	State relied on attempts to reconstruct and availability of exhibits	Court held the missing reporter’s record was necessary to resolve the appeal and harm resulted
Whether the missing record can be replaced by agreement or accurate duplicate	Appellant said record cannot be replaced; audio/notes were inadequate for reconstruction	State pointed to audio/notes and attempts at reconstruction	Court found record irretrievably lost and could not be replaced; new trial required

Issac v. State, 989 S.W.2d 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (incomplete record requires harm analysis, not automatic reversal)
Nava v. State, 415 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (missing-record necessity requirement equates to harm analysis)
Routier v. State, 112 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (use of another reporter to edit/transcribe inaccurate records approved)
Johnson v. State, 151 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (reporter’s notes are “lost” only if missing portions are irretrievable; contempt may be used to compel completion)
Osuch v. State, 976 S.W.2d 810 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (destroyed evidence necessary to appeal’s resolution may require new trial)