666 S.W.3d 384
Tenn. Ct. App.2022Background
- Kevin Waggoner, convicted of second-degree murder (sentence 18 years), sought the full audio recordings of his 2016 Union County criminal trial after alleging transcript discrepancies.
- Waggoner initially raised the recordings issue on his criminal appeal; the Court of Criminal Appeals said he needed chancery review under the Tennessee Public Records Act.
- Waggoner filed a public-records petition in Davidson County Chancery Court naming the State, the trial judge (Sexton), the criminal court clerk (Williams), and the court reporter.
- The Chancery Court dismissed the petition, holding (1) § 40-14-307 does not require the clerk to retain audio verbatim recordings (only the written transcript), and (2) the recordings are exempt from disclosure under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 34.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: it held § 40-14-307 requires court reporters to file verbatim records (audio or steno notes) with the clerk, and Rule 34’s deliberative/confidential exceptions did not justify nondisclosure here; the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-14-307 requires filing and clerk preservation of verbatim recordings (audio/steno) used to create transcripts | Waggoner: § 40-14-307 (with § 40-14-306 and § 40-14-317) requires reporters to file verbatim "records so taken" (audio/steno) and clerk to preserve them | Judge Sexton/Williams: statute requires only that the written, certified transcript be filed; audio is merely a backup and not an "official record"; Rule 26 governs electronic official records | Court of Appeals: Reversed trial court. § 40-14-307 (read with § 306/317 and AOC guidance and AG opinion) requires filing of verbatim recordings or steno notes with the clerk and preservation as part of the trial record |
| Whether the trial audio recordings are exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act via Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 34 | Waggoner: Recordings are public records filed with the clerk under § 40-14-307; the Public Records Act presumes disclosure and R. 34 exceptions do not apply to verbatim records filed as part of the case file | Sexton/Williams: Recordings were created for internal court use and are part of the court's deliberative process; disclosure would frustrate judicial function (citing Gentry) | Court of Appeals: Reversed trial court. R. 34(2)(C)(v) and (viii) do not justify withholding statutorily filed verbatim records here; appellees failed to meet burden to prove nondisclosure by a preponderance; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessean v. Metro Gov't of Nashville, 485 S.W.3d 857 (Tenn. 2016) (public-records presumption of openness and Act’s purpose)
- Memphis Publ’g Co. v. Cherokee Children & Family Servs., Inc., 87 S.W.3d 67 (Tenn. 2002) (Public Records Act interpretation is question of law)
- Schneider v. City of Jackson, 226 S.W.3d 332 (Tenn. 2007) (Act to be construed broadly to give fullest possible access)
- Layman v. State, 464 S.W.2d 331 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1970) (importance of maintaining verbatim recordings for future transcription)
- Cassidy v. State, 470 S.W.2d 839 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1971) (verbatim records availability; transcript need not contain everything but verbatim record should be available if needed)
- State v. Cawood, 134 S.W.3d 159 (Tenn. 2004) (initial Public Records Act test: whether record was made or received pursuant to law or official business)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (judicial records are generally subject to public access)
- H&R Block Eastern Tax Servs., Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Com. & Ins., Div. of Ins., 267 S.W.3d 848 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (persuasiveness of Attorney General opinions when State takes contrary positions)