Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Haw. App. 654

638 P.2d 873

State v. Bigelow

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

Decided January 14, 1982

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · decided 1982-01-14

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Appellant complains that in the decision filed by the court, there is no finding that the animals in question were confined. However, no request for such a finding, pursuant to Rule 23(c), HRPP, appeal’s in the record. That being so, the general finding of guilt in the decision was sufficient.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Momoki

Relies on 2 Haw. App. 259 - State v. Alsip

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-01-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2002

8 state decisions

40198219902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 This is an appeal from a conviction for cruelty to animals. We affirm.

¶2 Appellant complains that in the decision filed by the court, there is no finding that the animals in question were confined. However, no request for such a finding, pursuant to Rule 23(c), HRPP, appears in the record. That being so, the general finding of guilt in the decision was sufficient. Compare State v. Alsip, 2 Haw. App. 259, 630 P.2d 126 (1981).

¶3 Insofar as the appeal is a contention that the general finding of guilt by the court was unsupported by the evidence, the answer is that there is no transcript before us from which we can make that determination. Appellant says that the transcript is unavailable. However, Rule 39(b), HRPP, provides that

The rules and practice governing the preparation and form of the record on appeal in civil actions shall apply to the record on *655 appeal in all penal proceedings, except as otherwise provided in these rules.
Charles R. Kozak on the briefs for appellant. Wesley T. Kan, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, on the briefs for appellee.

¶4 There is no provision in the Rules of Penal Procedure as to how the problem of an unavailable transcript is handled. However, Rule 75(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in detail, a method for settling what the evidence was below. There is no indication that counsel sought to follow that rule. Accordingly, the judgment must be affirmed.

/2/hawapp/654 · .json · Public domain