Counsel for Appellant moved for a directed verdict based on sufficiency of evidence, specifically lack of showing of substantial pain. The Trial Court denied the motion. The italicized phrase adds critical language to the motion that was clearly not in the record and which, therefore, was not presented to the trial court when the motion was made and denied at the close of all the evidence. To that extent, the abstract misstates the record and conveys the notion that the trial judge received and denied a newly articulated specific motion for directed verdict at the close of all the proof. This obviously imposes a duty on counsel preparing the abstract not to misstate the record, as was done in this case by the addition of language in the renewed directed-verdict motion that was not argued to the trial court.
Lawyers are officers of the court.
Courts necessarily rely upon their representations in the abstracts filed in appeals in order to decide cases. The abstract is to be a condensation of the material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, and other matters contained in the record so that the appellate court will understand the points of appeal. Therefore, appellate courts depend upon the honesty and truthfulness of counsel regarding the abstracts filed in appeals. Where an abstract has been knowingly prepared by counsel with misrepresentation of a central issue on appeal, we are duty-bound to state our disapproval. Finally, we also hold that the trial court did not err by refusing to include a jury instruction requested by appellant concerning the alternative sentences of probation or a suspended sentence.