State v. Varn

THIS OPINION
HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN
ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Frank Varn, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2010-168027

Appeal From Richland County

Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-338

Heard May 7, 2012 – Filed May 30, 2012

REVERSED

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.[1]  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).

REVERSED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

[1] On appeal to the circuit court, it was the State's
burden as the appellant to provide a sufficient record to the court.