From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Hutto

Supreme Court of South Carolina
May 11, 1983
279 S.C. 131 (S.C. 1983)

Summary

finding no error because the appellant did not meet his burden of presenting a record that was sufficiently complete for appellate review of the trial judge's actions

Summary of this case from State v. Toomer

Opinion

21921

May 11, 1983.

Appeal from General Sessions Court, Lee County; Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Judge.

Sol. R. Kirk McLeod, Sumter and George M. Stuckey, Jr., Bishopville, for appellant. Jacob Jennings, Bishopville, for respondent.


May 11, 1983.


Respondent was indicted for breach of trust with a fraudulent intention. After the presentation of the State's case, the trial judge dismissed the indictment on the ground the evidence did not sufficiently comply with the indictment to justify submission of the case to the jury. The State appeals from this order.

Appellant argues that the trial judge erred in finding that the evidence did not sustain the charge in the indictment. The record before this Court does not contain any trial testimony. The statement of the case presents the only evidentiary facts in the record, and that presentation is incomplete.

Appellant has not met its burden of presenting a record which is sufficiently complete to permit this Court to review the lower court's actions; therefore, we find no error. State v. Winestock, 271 S.C. 473, 248 S.E.2d 307 (1978); State v. Gore, 257 S.C. 330, 185 S.E.2d 826 (1971). The lower court's judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Hutto

Supreme Court of South Carolina
May 11, 1983
279 S.C. 131 (S.C. 1983)

finding no error because the appellant did not meet his burden of presenting a record that was sufficiently complete for appellate review of the trial judge's actions

Summary of this case from State v. Toomer

affirming the ruling of the trial court after finding the appellant "ha[d] not met its burden of presenting a record which [was] sufficiently complete to permit this [c]ourt to review the [trial] court's actions" because the appellant failed to include trial testimony in the record on appeal

Summary of this case from Williams v. Alford

affirming dismissal of indictment for insufficiency of evidence where the State failed to meet its burden of presenting a record which was sufficiently complete to permit review by the appellate entity

Summary of this case from State v. Carlson
Case details for

State v. Hutto

Case Details

Full title:The STATE, Appellant, v. Cecil R. HUTTO, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: May 11, 1983

Citations

279 S.C. 131 (S.C. 1983)
303 S.E.2d 90

Citing Cases

Williams v. Alford

This court cannot conduct a de novo review because Father did not produce a sufficient record. Accordingly,…

Williams v. Alford

This court cannot conduct a de novo review because Father did not produce a sufficient record. Accordingly,…