Background
A grand jury indicted Darell Keith Fell on multiple counts of sexual abuse of two children. During the investigation, five forensic interviews with the child complainants were video-recorded at child advocacy centers. Defense counsel filed a motion requesting that a court reporter be permitted to transcribe these CAC video recordings under a protective order limiting access to the State and defense team only.
Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion, ordering that a mutually agreed-upon court reporter transcribe the five CAC videos and that the parties submit a protective order limiting access. District Attorney Garza filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied. Garza then petitioned for writ of mandamus, arguing the trial court lacked authority to order transcription of the recordings.
The Court’s Holding
The court conditionally granted mandamus relief, directing the trial court to vacate its transcription order. Under Texas Family Code § 264.408(d-1), a court must deny any request by a defendant to copy, photograph, duplicate, or otherwise reproduce electronic recordings of child interviews made at child advocacy centers—provided the prosecutor has made the recordings reasonably available to the defendant for inspection and examination.
The court found that the State had made the CAC videos reasonably available to the defense, so the dispositive issue was whether a court-reporter transcription constitutes a “copy or reproduction” under the statute’s plain language. The court concluded it does, relying on its binding precedent in In re State ex rel. Tharp (Tex. App.—Austin 2025). The court explained that the trial court exceeded its statutory authority and that the parties’ agreement on a neutral court reporter did not change the analysis—the statutory prohibition applies regardless of who hires the transcriber.
Key Takeaways
- CAC video recordings cannot be transcribed without statutory authorization, even with protective orders limiting access.
- Reasonable access to view recordings does not permit defendants to obtain copies or reproductions via transcription or other means.
- Transcription requests are treated identically to copying, photographing, and duplication requests under § 264.408(d-1).
- Intermediate appellate courts are bound by their own precedent and cannot revisit settled holdings absent en banc or higher court action.
Why It Matters
This decision protects child sexual abuse victims from wider circulation of their sensitive forensic interviews by foreclosing a procedural workaround. While defendants retain a right to reasonable access to view CAC recordings, they cannot obtain transcripts that could be disseminated, discussed outside the courtroom, or preserved indefinitely. The ruling clarifies that statutory protections for child victims cannot be circumvented through creative discovery requests, even when coupled with protective orders.
The decision also reinforces intermediate appellate courts’ obligation to follow binding precedent. Although the real party in interest argued the court should revisit Tharp, the court held itself bound by that recent decision unless and until it is overruled en banc or by a higher authority—a principle applicable across Texas’s appellate system and demonstrating the strength of the statutory bar on CAC recording reproduction.