State v. Ladson
Decision Date | 09 April 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 4232.,4232. |
Citation | 644 S.E.2d 271 |
Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Travis Anthony LADSON, Appellant. |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor David M. Pascoe, Jr., of Summerville, for Respondent.
Travis Anthony Ladson was convicted of first-degree burglary following a three-day trial. Ladson was sentenced on November 10, 2004, to prison for a non-parolable term of twenty-five years. Ladson timely appealed his conviction and sentence. In accordance with standard procedure, Ladson promptly requested the transcript of the trial from the court reporter. Approximately ten months later, in August of 2005, the court reporter finally disclosed that there was no record of the trial court proceedings.
Because of the complete absence of a transcript, Ladson moved this court to reverse the convictions and sentences and for a new trial. Based on the State's assurance that the record could be easily reconstructed, a judge of this court denied Ladson's motion and remanded the matter to the trial court to reconstruct the record. More than a year after the trial, the trial judge convened a hearing with trial counsel in an effort to reconstruct the record.
We now have before us what the State contends is a reconstructed record of the trial court proceedings sufficient to permit appellate review. Ladson contends the conclusory and summary nature of the purported record on appeal does not permit meaningful appellate review. Because we find the reconstructed record insufficient for meaningful review of direct appeal issues, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
On January 5, 2006, pursuant to this court's order, the trial judge held a hearing to reconstruct the record for appeal.1 It was clear from the outset of this hearing that reconstructing the record from scratch, after such a substantial delay, would be an uphill struggle. The State presented two affidavits from witnesses and "summarized" the testimony of the other witnesses.
The information provided by the State was conclusory. The State usually prefaced its recall of witness testimony with statements like "his testimony generally would be," "he testified generally to the following," and "the next witness . . . will be by summation." Ladson took issue with the State's summary reconstruction of the record. The trial judge, noting that he no longer had his handwritten notes from the trial, typically would conclude with respect to a particular witness that the State presented "an accurate summation of the testimony," or the State's general description was "a correct summation of the testimony," or "the summation presented by the State . . . [was] a correct statement."
When the State concluded its summary of the testimony of one witness, the trial court concurred with the summary as "an accurate reflection of her testimony," and further held that the witness was "qualified as an expert in her field, and . . . the court found her testimony to be credible." The trial court then remarked, "I do not believe there was any question, at any point in time, as to the chain of evidence regarding these particular fingerprints." The State corrected the trial court and noted that the witness was not qualified as an expert and further that Ladson's trial counsel had preliminarily objected to the chain of custody. The trial court promptly agreed and explained the confusion by referring to another witness.
The State, too, had difficulty recalling the witnesses and the testimony. For example, the State had completely forgotten about one witness, whose identity was determined only by reference to Ladson's trial counsel's notes. As the Solicitor acknowledged, "the final witness that I have to admit I discovered from [Ladson's trial counsel's] notes."
There is even a dispute as to whether Ladson testified in his own defense. Ladson claims he did not testify. The trial court found otherwise, noting the "court's remembrance and recollection that the Defendant was not credible, and did not help himself in his testimony before the jury."
The trial court appeared equally confident that the jury returned its verdict the same day it began its deliberations: "My only recollection is that, after the court answered [a question from the jury], that the jury came out relatively soon after that with a verdict." When confronted with a different recollection from Ladson's counsel (claiming the jury was excused for the day and reached a verdict the following day), the trial court responded, The trial court's recollection was proven faulty when the State called attention to the juror note dated November 9, 2004, and the jury's verdict dated the next day, November 10.
The trial court and the State are confident that Ladson made timely objections at trial and moved for a directed verdict "based upon the evidence." Presumably, the State believes these concessions enlighten Ladson and us to the specific issues to address on appeal.
On January 26, 2006, the trial court issued an "Order for the Record on Appeal."
Ladson maintains the reconstructed record does not allow for meaningful review of his direct appeal. The State disagrees and asserts this court should find the record adequate for appellate review of the claims Ladson raised at the reconstructed hearing.
It is clear from the record before us that all parties made a diligent effort to reconstruct the record. Despite these good faith efforts, the reconstructed record is largely conclusory, with testimony, objections, and the like recalled only in summary fashion. Thus, we must first determine the analytical framework for assessing the sufficiency of a reconstructed record, followed by a determination if the law warrants a new trial under the record before us.
South Carolina jurisprudence recognizes the trial court's authority to set the record for appeal. In China v. Parrott, 251 S.C. 329, 334, 162 S.E.2d 276, 278 (1968), our supreme court held that where a portion of the court reporter's notes were lost, the trial judge properly considered affidavits from counsel and the court reporter in reconstructing the record. See also Koon v. State, 358 S.C. 359, 367, 595 S.E.2d 456, 460 (2004) (, )overruled on other grounds by State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 105, 610 S.E.2d 494, 501 (2005); Whitehead v. State, 352 S.C. 215, 221, 574 S.E.2d 200, 203 (2002) ( ); Dolive v. J.E.E. Developers, Inc., 308 S.C. 380, 383, 418 S.E.2d 319, 321 (Ct.App. 1992) ( ).
The authority of the trial court in South Carolina to reconstruct the record for appellate purposes aligns our state with the majority of jurisdictions that hold "the inability to prepare a complete verbatim transcript, in and of itself, does not necessarily present a sufficient ground for reversal." Smith v. State, 291 Md. 125, 433 A.2d 1143, 1148 (1981); e.g., Lewis v. State, 354 Ark. 359, 123 S.W.3d 891, 893 (2003); Wilson v. State, 334 Md. 469, 639 A.2d 696, 699 (1994); State v. Deschon, 320 Mont. 1, 85 P.3d 756, 760 (2004); Lopez v. State, 105 Nev. 68, 769 P.2d 1276, 1280 (1989); State v. Izaguirre, 272 N.J.Super. 51, 639 A.2d 343, 346 (App.Div. 1994); People v. Shire, 23 A.D.3d 709, 803 N.Y.S.2d 309, 310 (N.Y.App.Div. 2005); State v. Quick, 634 S.E.2d 915, 918 (N.C.Ct.App. 2006); Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 36 Va. App. 8, 548 S.E.2d 230, 232-33 (2001).
Most jurisdictions require an appellant to demonstrate specific prejudice flowing from an incomplete or reconstructed record. See, e.g., Lewis, 123 S.W.3d at 893 (); State v. Williams, 227 Conn. 101, 629 A.2d 402, 406 (1993) ( ); Jones v. State, 923 So.2d 486, 489 (Fla. 2006) ( ); State v. Wright, 97 Idaho 229, 542 P.2d 63, 65 (1975) ( ); Simpson v. Commonwealth, 759 S.W.2d 224, 228 (Ky. 1988) ( ); Smith, 433 A.2d at 1148 ( ); Commonwealth v. Chatman, 10 Mass.App.Ct. 228, 406 N.E.2d 1037, 1040 (1980) ( ); State v. Borden, 605 S.W.2d 88, 92 (Mo. 1980) ( ); State v. Dupris, 373 N.W.2d 446, 449 (S.D. 1985) ( ); State v. Neal, 172 W.Va. 189, 304 S.E.2d 342, 345 (1983) (). "[B]efore a defendant can establish that he is entitled to a new trial on the basis of an inadequate...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adams v. Wise
...that ‘the incomplete nature of the transcript prevents the appellate court from conducting a “meaningful appellate review.”'” Ladson, 644 S.E.2d at 274 (quoting In re D.W., 615 S.E.2d 90, 94 (N.C. App. 2005)). In finding the reconstructed record in Ladson did not permit meaningful review, t......
-
Adams v. Wise
...that ‘the incomplete nature of the transcript prevents the appellate court from conducting a “meaningful appellate review.”'” Ladson, 644 S.E.2d at 274 (quoting In re D.W., 615 S.E.2d 90, 94 (N.C. App. 2005)). In finding the reconstructed record in Ladson did not permit meaningful review, t......
-
Adams v. Wise
...... . . On. September 15, 2015, Petitioner filed an application for. post-conviction relief (“PCR”) in state court,. alleging, among other claims, involuntary guilty plea and. ineffective assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 14-1 at 5.). Because ... transcript, in and of itself, does not necessarily present a. sufficient ground for reversal.” State v. Ladson , 644 S.E.2d 271, 273 (S.C. Ct. App. 2007) (citing. majority law from numerous other jurisdictions). Here, both. plea counsel and the ......
-
Adams v. Wise
...... . . On. September 15, 2015, Petitioner filed an application for. post-conviction relief (“PCR”) in state court,. alleging, among other claims, involuntary guilty plea and. ineffective assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 14-1 at 5.). Because ... transcript, in and of itself, does not necessarily present a. sufficient ground for reversal.” State v. Ladson , 644 S.E.2d 271, 273 (S.C. Ct. App. 2007) (citing. majority law from numerous other jurisdictions). Here, both. plea counsel and the ......