Court reporters; eliminating charge for certain transcripts. Effective date.
Summary
SB230 updates Oklahoma’s court-reporter statute governing transcripts in judicial proceedings. The bill preserves the general requirement that court reporters make a full record of proceedings and transcribe requested portions, but it revises the transcript-fee language so that two copies of the original transcript are furnished to all parties without additional charge. It also clarifies that the Supreme Court sets the fee for a certified copy of an original transcript and retains existing rules on transcript format, preparation, delivery, and filing.
The bill also addresses situations where no court reporter is available to the assigned judge. In those cases, the judge may order electronic recording of the proceedings, or the parties may stipulate to a freelance reporter with court approval and share the cost. The resulting transcript, if ordered, is treated as the official transcript for all purposes. The bill keeps the existing provisions allowing indigent criminal defendants to obtain transcripts at district court expense when needed for an appeal, and it maintains the rule that court reporters file their records with the court clerk.
Impact
SB230 would amend 20 O.S. Section 106.4, the statute governing court reporters and transcripts, by changing how transcript copies are provided and paid for in civil and criminal cases. Its main practical effect is to eliminate charges for two copies of the original transcript furnished to parties, while leaving in place the requirement that requesting parties initially pay transcript preparation costs subject to taxation as costs. It also preserves the Supreme Court’s authority over transcript rules and fees, and it continues existing procedures for electronic recording, freelance reporters, and indigent criminal appeals.
Sentiment
The available legislative context suggests a generally favorable and procedural measure rather than a controversial policy change. The bill’s caption emphasizes eliminating charges for certain transcripts, indicating a consumer- or access-oriented purpose, and there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes showing opposition or debate. Its referral to Judiciary is consistent with a technical court-administration bill that appears to have been treated as a routine statutory update.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials, but the likely issue area is cost allocation for transcripts. The main stakeholders affected are court reporters, litigants in civil and criminal cases, and the judiciary. Potential concerns would center on whether eliminating charges for certain transcript copies shifts administrative costs to courts or reporters, and whether the change affects existing fee structures or access to appellate records; however, no explicit objections or amendments are shown in the available record.