Court Opinion

ID: 9727545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:42:27.481848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:39.994835
License: Public Domain

HUNTER, Justice,
concurring in result.
I respectfully concur in the result reached by the majority, but am compelled to state my rationale for joining its disposition of Issue II.
Effective January 1, 1982, Ind.R.Ap.P. 7.2(C) was amended to read:
“Incompleteness or inadequacy of the record shall not constitute a ground for dismissal of the appeal or preclude review on the merits.”
Concomitantly, Ind.R.Ap.P. 7.2(B) now reads:
“Parts which are not transmitted to the court on appeal shall nevertheless be a *169part of the record on appeal for all purposes.”
These amendments to subsections “B” and “C” of Ind.R.Ap.P. 7.2 preclude the automatic waiver of an appellant’s claim of error heretofore triggered by virtue of the failure to include portions of the record necessary to appellate review. See, e.g., Hall v. State, (1980) Ind., 405 N.E.2d 530; Mendez v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 309, 370 N.E.2d 323. Where the record has been established in the trial court but not included in the record presented for review, this Court must now issue a writ of certiorari to the trial court to obtain the missing portions. For instance, in McNeal v. State, (1982) Ind.App., 434 N.E.2d 127, the Court of Appeals issued a writ to obtain exhibits which had been admitted at trial but had not been included in the record presented on appeal.
The majority’s opinion is phrased in terms such as “the transcript of which [voir dire] is not included in the record” and “the record contains no transcript of any hearing upon a post trial motion . .. . ” In its literal sense, this language transcends the letter and spirit of amended rule Ind.R.Ap.P. 7.2(B) and (C).
Nonetheless, the majority’s ultimate disposition is justified for the reason that it appears from the record that during voir dire, the court reporter was excused with the consent of both parties. Similarly, there is no indication that an evidentiary hearing was held on defendant’s motion to correct errors. In fact, defendant requests the opportunity to present evidence pertinent to Issue II as part of the relief he seeks in his appellate brief.
Consequently, defendant has waived his claim of error by virtue of his failure to establish a proper record in the trial court. For that reason, the majority’s resolution of Issue II is correct.
I concur in result.