Opinion
2012-UP-338
05-30-2012
The State, Respondent, v. Frank Varn, Appellant.
Assistant Public Defender Tristan M. Shaffer of Richland County Public Defender's Office, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of the Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia; and Solicitor Daniel E. Johnson, of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, of Columbia, for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Heard May 7, 2012
Appeal From Richland County, Appellate Case No. 2010-168027 Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge
Assistant Public Defender Tristan M. Shaffer of Richland County Public Defender's Office, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of the Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia; and Solicitor Daniel E. Johnson, of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Frank Varn appeals from an order of the circuit court reversing the dismissal of the State's case against him for criminal domestic violence. The circuit court found the magistrate's court abused its discretion by suppressing testimony proffered by the State and remanded the case to the magistrate's court for further proceedings. We reverse.
We find the State failed to provide a sufficient record from which the circuit court could determine that the magistrate's court erred by suppressing the proffered testimony because the record does not clearly indicate what the excluded testimony would have been or the grounds for the magistrate's court's decision to exclude the evidence. See State v. Howard, 396 S.C. 173, 177, 720 S.E.2d 511, 514 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The admission or exclusion of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court...." (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Winestock, 271 S.C. 473, 474, 248 S.E.2d 307, 307-08 (1978) (providing it is the appellant's burden to present a sufficient record from which the appellate court can determine whether the trial court erred in the respects charged); State v. Garris, 394 S.C. 336, 350 n.12, 714 S.E.2d 888, 896 n.12 (Ct. App. 2011) ("[A]n appellate court will not consider error alleged in the exclusion of testimony unless the record on appeal shows fairly what the excluded testimony would have been." (internal quotation marks omitted)); S.C. Code Ann. § 18-3-70 (Supp. 2011) (providing the circuit court must review criminal appeals from the magistrate's court based solely upon the record).
On appeal to the circuit court, it was the State's burden as the appellant to provide a sufficient record to the court.
REVERSED.
PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.