Court Opinion

ID: 9854347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:06:08.21433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:02.231212
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, J.
(concurring in result only):
I disagree with the reasoning and analysis of the majority. The reliance by the majority on decisions from other jurisdictions is unnecessary. I respectfully concur in result ONLY. I VOTE to REVERSE and REMAND the convictions and sentences of Travis Anthony Ladson for a new trial.
The precedent extant in South Carolina, consisting of: China v. Parrott, 251 S.C. 329, 162 S.E.2d 276 (1968); Whitehead v. State, 352 S.C. 215, 574 S.E.2d 200 (2002); Koon v. State, 358 S.C. 359, 595 S.E.2d 456 (2004); and Dolive v. J.E.E. Developers, Inc., 308 S.C. 380 418 S.E.2d 319 (Ct.App.1992), establishes the rule and procedure in regard to reconstruction of the record of the trial court proceedings. Our law places the burden upon the circuit judge to utilize discretion in the reconstruction proceeding. The ruling of the circuit court judge will only be reversed in the event of an abuse of discretion.
In China:
The defendant objects to the fact that the trial judge considered the affidavits of plaintiffs counsel and the court reporter in determining what transpired. The trial of this case was held in January 1965 and the affidavits were signed in April and May of 1967, over two years after the trial. The defendant contends that the long lapse of time since the trial should have rendered the affidavits of little probative value, especially in view of the inability of the trial judge and defendant’s counsel to recall what took place and the statement by the trial judge in his previous order that the verdict of the jury apparently exonerated the defendant of the charge of recklessness. We find no error in the action taken by the trial judge.
*329Where there is a disagreement as to what the record on appeal should contain, the duty and responsibility of settling the question rests upon the trial judge.....
In doing so he properly considered the affidavits of counsel and the court reporter as to what happened. The fact that the notes of the court reporter were lost and the trial judge had no independent recollection of the incident under inquiry did not preclude him from determining the question upon the basis of the affidavits submitted. Their probative value was for him to determine and his conclusions thereabout are binding on the court.
251 S.C. at 333-34, 162 S.E.2d at 278 (internal citations omitted).
Whitehead inculcates:
Petitioner sought a remand to reconstruct the record of his first PCR hearing. See China v. Parrott, supra. We now grant his motion and remand the case to Jasper County for a hearing to reconstruct the first PCR record. This hearing should be held within 45 days of the date this opinion is filed. If the circuit court judge determines that reconstruction is not possible, he shall notify this Court and the parties within 15 days of the reconstruction hearing. If the record is reconstructed, the parties shall notify this Court and the matter will proceed according to King v. State, supra.[, 308 S.C. 348, 417 S.E.2d 868]
352 S.C. at 221, 574 S.E.2d at 203.
Our supreme court in Koon succinctly instructs as to the judicial duty if the original trial record is deficient:
Where a transcript has been lost or destroyed, a court may remand to have the record reconstructed. See Whitehead v. State, 352 S.C. 215, 574 S.E.2d 200 (2002); China v. Parrott, 251 S.C. 329, 162 S.E.2d 276 (1968) (trial judge reconstructed the record where court reporter records were unavailable).
358 S.C. at 367, 595 S.E.2d at 460.
Finally, this court edifies in Dolive:
Appellants first contend the circuit court erred in allowing additional matters into the record on appeal arguing that, while Title 5 zoning eases allow supplementation of the *330record, there is no such provision for Title 6 zoning cases under which this case falls. However, this case does not involve supplementation of the record. The circuit court merely allowed J.E.E. to reconstruct the record by means of an affidavit. In China v. Parrott, 251 S.C. 329, 162 S.E.2d 276 (1968), our Supreme Court held, where portions of stenographic notes of a trial proceeding were lost before they were transcribed by the court reporter, it was not error for the trial judge to consider affidavits of plaintiffs counsel and the court reporter in determining what transpired. Based on the fact that this matter has already been twice appealed to the circuit court and the loss of the vital portions of the record appear to have been through no fault of the respondent, we find no error in the circuit court’s ruling allowing for reconstruction of the record.
308 S.C. at 383, 418 S.E.2d at 321.
The vagaries and vicissitudes of a reconstruction hearing are demonstrated with clarity in the case sub judice. The reconstructed record contains:
1. Affidavit of the victim, Charles Smith, given on December 21, 2005.
2. Affidavit of the crime scene investigator, Sergeant Ryan Depoppe, given on December 21, 2005.
3. Handwritten notes of the original court reporter, Hilda Jordan.
4. Handwritten notes of M. Thomas, Ladson’s attorney at trial.
5. Large drawing showing the layout of Smith’s home.
6. Coin box found inside Smith’s home.
7. Hatchet discovered outside Smith’s home.
8. Wallet found inside Smith’s home.
9. Plastic Bag found inside Smith home.
10. Fingerprint samples given by Ladson.
10. Fingerprint analysis from the Charleston Police Department stating prints found on the coin box match those of Ladson.
Despite a brobdingnagian effort by the circuit judge and trial counsel, we are confronted with an epigrammatic record as it relates to appellate issues.
*331At oral argument, counsel was queried by the court in regard to an identification of appellate issues based on the reconstructed record. Counsel for the State was unable to identify the appellate issues with any degree of exactitude.
Because the reconstructed record is profoundly deficient in guiding the court to preserved appellate issues, I come to the ineluctable conclusion that a retrial is mandated.
I VOTE to REVERSE and REMAND the convictions and sentences of Travis Anthony Ladson for a new trial.