Jones v. State, 13-24-00609-CR, October 01, 2026.
On appeal from 367th District Court of Denton County, Texas
Synopsis
A pretrial motion and signed order requiring the court reporter to record bench conferences did not preserve a complaint that those conferences went unrecorded. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1 and Valle v. State, counsel was required to object when the reporting omission occurred and give the trial court an opportunity to correct it.
Relevance to Family Law
The preservation rule has direct significance in divorce, conservatorship, enforcement, and property cases because consequential rulings frequently occur during informal bench conferences. A granted motion for a court reporter—or even an express order that all proceedings be recorded—does not relieve counsel of the obligation to verify that the reporter is taking down the conference and to make a timely objection if not.
In family litigation, an unrecorded bench conference may concern admissibility of custody evaluations, expert testimony, tracing evidence, reimbursement claims, attorney’s fees, sanctions, protective orders, or the terms of a jury charge. If the conference is not recorded, the appellate court may be unable to determine what was requested, what objections were made, what the trial court ruled, or whether the alleged error was harmful. Jones therefore reinforces a practical rule: preservation requires active record management during trial, not merely a favorable pretrial order.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Michael Jones was tried on charges arising from allegations involving two children. A jury found him guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a young child, aggravated sexual assault of a child, and indecency with a child. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of thirty-seven years, ten years, and four years.
Before trial, Jones filed a motion requesting that the court reporter record all proceedings, expressly including all bench conferences between the court and counsel, whether conducted inside or outside the jury’s presence. The trial court granted the motion.
Several bench conferences nevertheless occurred during trial without being recorded or transcribed. Neither Jones’s counsel nor the State objected while the conferences were taking place or otherwise called the reporting omission to the trial court’s attention during trial.
Jones argued on appeal that the trial court erred by failing to ensure compliance with the pretrial reporting order. He also raised issues concerning the trial court’s qualification of the jury and whether the jury charges adequately protected his right to a unanimous verdict on the aggravated-sexual-assault and indecency counts.
Issues Decided
The court addressed four issues:
- Whether Jones preserved his complaint that bench conferences were not recorded when he had obtained a pretrial order requiring their transcription but did not object when the omissions occurred.
- Whether the record established reversible error concerning the trial court’s qualification of the prospective jurors.
- Whether the aggravated-sexual-assault charge failed to require a unanimous verdict.
- Whether the indecency-with-a-child charge failed to require a unanimous verdict.
Rules Applied
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 13.1: The official court reporter or court recorder must attend court sessions and make a full record of the proceedings unless excused by agreement of the parties.
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a): As a prerequisite to appellate review, the record generally must show a timely request, objection, or motion stating the grounds for the desired ruling with sufficient specificity, as well as an express or implicit ruling by the trial court.
- Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500, 508–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003): A party must object when the court reporter fails to record proceedings; a pretrial request for transcription does not, by itself, preserve a later complaint about an unrecorded portion of trial.
- Texas Penal Code §§ 21.02, 21.11, and 22.021: These provisions define the charged offenses of continuous sexual abuse, indecency with a child, and aggravated sexual assault of a child.
- Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.08 and Texas Penal Code §§ 3.03(b)(2) and 3.04(c): These provisions governed the trial court’s authority to order the sentences to run consecutively.
Application
Jones had taken an important preliminary step: he filed a written motion specifically requesting that every bench conference be recorded, and the trial court granted that request. But the court of appeals treated the pretrial ruling as insufficient to preserve an error that later became apparent during trial.
When the bench conferences occurred without being recorded, counsel did not object, remind the court of its order, request the reporter’s presence, or ask that the substance of the conference be restated on the record. The trial court therefore was not given a contemporaneous opportunity to stop the conference, secure the reporter, or reconstruct the discussion before the proceeding continued.
Applying Rule 33.1 and Valle, the court concluded that the absence of a trial objection defeated preservation. The existence of a favorable pretrial order did not convert the reporting requirement into a self-preserving appellate complaint.
The court also considered Jones’s challenge to the jury-qualification process in light of the trial record. Jones appeared with counsel, announced ready, participated in voir dire, and repeatedly declined the trial court’s invitations to raise matters outside the venire’s presence. After the selected jurors were seated, counsel asserted no objection to the panel before it was sworn.
Finally, the court rejected the asserted unanimity defects concerning the aggravated-sexual-assault and indecency charges. After considering the indictments, evidence, statutory offenses, and charge language, the court found no basis for reversal and affirmed all three judgments.
Holding
The complaint concerning the unrecorded bench conferences was not preserved. Even though Jones had obtained a pretrial order requiring the court reporter to record those conferences, Rule 33.1 and Valle required a timely objection when the reporting omission occurred.
The court rejected the jury-qualification complaint. The record showed that counsel announced ready, participated in jury selection, declined opportunities to raise preliminary concerns, and did not object to the seating of the selected panel.
The court overruled the unanimity challenge to the aggravated-sexual-assault charge. It found no reversible charge defect requiring a new trial on that conviction.
The court likewise overruled the unanimity challenge to the indecency-with-a-child charge. Having rejected all four appellate issues, the court affirmed the judgments.
Practical Application
Family-law litigators should treat a motion requesting a complete reporter’s record as the beginning of the preservation process, not its conclusion. Before testimony begins, counsel should confirm on the record that the reporter will transcribe voir dire, bench conferences, objections, offers of proof, charge conferences, and post-verdict proceedings.
During a jury trial, an unrecorded bench conference can be especially damaging. Evidentiary objections, limiting instructions, challenges to proposed questions, and charge disputes may become impossible to review if the conference was never transcribed. If the reporter does not approach the bench or otherwise indicate that the discussion is being recorded, counsel should pause and request confirmation before addressing the merits.
The same concern applies in bench trials and temporary-orders hearings. Although the judge is the factfinder, a complete record remains essential to challenges involving evidentiary rulings, preservation of legal arguments, sufficiency review, findings of fact, and harm. Counsel should not assume that a court reporter is recording an informal discussion simply because the reporter is present in the courtroom.
If an omission is discovered during the proceeding, counsel should immediately identify it on the record. When feasible, counsel should ask the court to summarize the ruling and permit the parties to restate their objections and arguments. Prompt reconstruction is substantially more reliable than attempting to determine the content of an unrecorded conference after judgment.
The issue should also be considered when preserving complaints involving:
- Admission or exclusion of a custody evaluation or social study.
- Expert qualifications under Texas Rule of Evidence 702.
- Authentication of electronic communications or social-media evidence.
- Property characterization and tracing testimony.
- Reimbursement and economic-contribution claims.
- Discovery sanctions or evidentiary presumptions.
- Attorney’s fees and segregation.
- Jury-charge questions involving conservatorship, characterization, reimbursement, or fraud.
- Informal rendition or clarification of temporary or final orders.
Checklists
Before Trial or Hearing
- File a written request for a court reporter and a complete record.
- Expressly include bench conferences, voir dire, charge conferences, arguments, and proceedings outside the jury’s presence.
- Obtain a ruling on the request.
- Confirm the ruling orally on the record before substantive proceedings begin.
- Determine whether the reporter can hear and record bench conferences from the reporter’s location.
- Arrange a procedure for confidential or sidebar discussions that still creates an appellate record.
- Advise co-counsel that someone must monitor whether each conference is being recorded.
During a Bench Conference
- Confirm that the court reporter is present and recording.
- If the conference is not being recorded, object before substantive discussion begins.
- Refer to any existing order requiring a complete record.
- Ask the court to pause until the reporter is in position.
- State the legal grounds for each objection with sufficient specificity.
- Obtain an express ruling whenever possible.
- Preserve excluded evidence through an offer of proof or bill of exception when required.
If a Conference Was Not Recorded
- Raise the omission immediately on the record.
- Identify which conference was omitted and when it occurred.
- Ask the court and counsel to reconstruct the substance of the discussion.
- Restate the request, objection, response, and ruling.
- Ask the trial court to confirm that the reconstruction is accurate.
- Request any necessary curative ruling or instruction.
- Do not wait until a motion for new trial or appeal if the omission can be addressed during trial.
Before Resting or Closing the Record
- Confirm that all exhibits have been admitted, rejected, or marked for identification.
- Verify that offers of proof and bills of exception are complete.
- Restate any material rulings made during informal or unrecorded discussions.
- Ensure that charge objections and requested instructions are recorded verbatim.
- Clarify whether the court has ruled on all pending motions and objections.
- Request findings of fact and conclusions of law when appropriate.
Preparing for Appeal
- Order and review the reporter’s record promptly.
- Compare the record against trial notes and the clerk’s record.
- Identify omitted conferences, exhibits, hearings, or rulings.
- Use the applicable procedures for correcting inaccuracies or resolving disputes about the reporter’s record.
- Distinguish between a proceeding that was recorded but omitted from the appellate record and one that was never recorded.
- Evaluate preservation separately from the merits and harm analysis.
- Do not assume that a pretrial motion or standing order substitutes for a contemporaneous objection.
Citation
Jones v. State, Nos. 13-24-00607-CR, 13-24-00608-CR & 13-24-00609-CR (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Oct. 1, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
The crossover principle is procedural: an advance request and order requiring a reporter’s record do not necessarily preserve a complaint about a later failure to record a particular proceeding. Under Rule 33.1, counsel must ordinarily make a timely, specific objection when the omission occurs so the trial court can correct it. Jones applies that principle to bench conferences under Rule 13.1 and follows Valle in requiring contemporaneous action.
The same mechanism can arise in a Texas divorce or suit affecting the parent-child relationship when the court conducts an unrecorded bench conference about evidence, discovery, experts, temporary relief, property issues, attorney’s fees, or the jury charge. Counsel should request that the conference be recorded, object if it is not, and obtain the ruling on the record. If the omission is discovered promptly, counsel should request an immediate reconstruction of the conference rather than relying solely on the earlier order.
Practitioners should also distinguish preservation from record correction. Procedures for correcting an inaccurate reporter’s record may help when a proceeding was recorded but was transcribed incorrectly or omitted from the appellate record. They generally cannot reproduce a conference that was never recorded, and they do not automatically cure the failure to make a contemporaneous objection. The safest procedure is to ensure that the conference is recorded in the first instance or, if it is not, to object and recreate its substance before trial continues.
~~aaa7c408-289e-4031-89a7-886046269946~~
Share this content: