in this case. Our analysis of Rule 25 in the preceding section makes clear that a successor judge’s determination about acting as the thirteenth juror involves both an analysis of the proof adduced at trial, including the extent to which witness demeanor was at issue, and a legal conclusion about the ability of the successor judge to act as the thirteenth juror. It is well- settled that this Court reviews de novo a trial court’s conclusions of law. See, e.g., State v. Carter, 160 S.W.3d 526, 531 (Tenn.2005); State v. Daniel, 12 S.W.3d 420, 423 (Tenn.2000). As to the successor judge’s analysis of the trial record, this Court is in the same position to evaluate the transcript and exhibits as is the successor judge. See, e.g., Krick v. City of Lawrenceburg, 945 S.W.2d 709, 712 (Tenn.1997) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, a 'de novo review of the
holding if a deposition is taken for discovery only  not for use at trial the deposition is not a stage of trial for which the defendant must be present recognizing that appellate court is in same position as trial court to assess evidence when all of the proof is contained in the record by deposition holding the materials submitted were sufficient because the record should include all that is necessary in order for the reviewing court to accurately assess the challenged agency action holding that the record on direct appeal was insufficiently developed to permit the appellate court to assess the merits of the claim holding that where there is evidence sufficient to sustain finding of trial court that prejudicial error was contained in record there is no basis for stating that trial court abused discretion in granting new trial