Summary
In State v. Bigelow, 2 Haw. App. 654, 638 P.2d 873 (1982), the defendant complained that the judgment of conviction filed by the court contained no findings of fact as to the material elements of the offense of which he was convicted.
Summary of this case from State v. BatsonOpinion
No. 8114.
January 14, 1982.
Appeal from District Court of the First Circuit, Koolaupoko Division HONORABLE M. GAY CONKLIN, JUDGE, D.C. NO. C-700.
HAYASHI, C.J., PADGETT AND BURNS, JJ.
Charles R. Kozak on the briefs for appellant.
Wesley T. Kan, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, on the briefs for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction for cruelty to animals. We affirm.
Appellant complains that in the decision filed by the court, there is no finding that the animals in question were confined. However, no request for such a finding, pursuant to Rule 23(c), HRPP, appears in the record. That being so, the general finding of guilt in the decision was sufficient. Compare State v. Alsip, 2 Haw. App. 259, 630 P.2d 126 (1981).
Insofar as the appeal is a contention that the general finding of guilt by the court was unsupported by the evidence, the answer is that there is no transcript before us from which we can make that determination. Appellant says that the transcript is unavailable. However, Rule 39(b), HRPP, provides that
The rules and practice governing the preparation and form of the record on appeal in civil actions shall apply to the record on appeal in all penal proceedings, except as otherwise provided in these rules.
There is no provision in the Rules of Penal Procedure as to how the problem of an unavailable transcript is handled. However, Rule 75(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in detail, a method for settling what the evidence was below. There is no indication that counsel sought to follow that rule. Accordingly, the judgment must be affirmed.