State v. Hutto

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Hutto

303 S.E.2d 90, 279 S.C. 131, 1983 S.C. LEXIS 292

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMay 11, 1983

Docket21921

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 303 S.E.2d 90 (State v. Hutto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Hutto, 303 S.E.2d 90, 279 S.C. 131, 1983 S.C. LEXIS 292 (S.C. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Respondent was indicted for breach of trust with a fraudulent intention. After the presentation of the State’s case, the trial judge dismissed the indictment on the ground the evidence did not sufficiently comply with the indictment to justify submission of the case to the jury. The State appeals from this order.

Appellant argues that the trial judge erred in finding that the evidence did not sustain the charge in the indictment. The record before this Court does not contain any trial testimony. The statement of the case presents the only evidentiary facts in the record, and that presentation is incomplete.

Appellant has not met its burden of presenting a record which is sufficiently complete to permit this Court to review the lower court’s actions; therefore, we find no error. State v. Winestock, 271 S. C. 473, 248 S. E. (2d) 307 (1978); State v. Gore, 257 S. C. 330, 185 S. E. (2d) 826 (1971). The lower court’s judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

Respondent was indicted for breach of trust with a fraudulent intention. After the presentation of the State’s case, the trial judge dismissed the indictment on the ground the evidence did not sufficiently comply with the indictment to justify submission of the case to the jury. The State appeals from this order.

Appellant argues that the trial judge erred in finding that the evidence did not sustain the charge in the indictment. The record before this Court does not contain any trial testimony. The statement of the case presents the only evidentiary facts in the record, and that presentation is incomplete.

Appellant has not met its burden of presenting a record which is sufficiently complete to permit this Court to review the lower court’s actions; therefore, we find no error. State v. Winestock, 271 S. C. 473, 248 S. E. (2d) 307 (1978); State v. Gore, 257 S. C. 330, 185 S. E. (2d) 826 (1971). The lower court’s judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 S.E.2d 90, 279 S.C. 131, 1983 S.C. LEXIS 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hutto-sc-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack