Narrative Opinion Summary
An appeal has been made regarding the forfeiture of a gambling device belonging to the Appellant, who argues that the property should not be condemned since he had no knowledge of its use for gambling, which was contrary to his instructions. The record consists of the petition for forfeiture, the Appellant’s response, and the trial court's order, but lacks a transcript of the hearing where oral testimony was presented. The trial court's order indicates that evidence was considered during the hearing, but without the transcript or a proper Rule 10(d) statement, it is assumed that the testimony was adequate to support the judgment. The appellate court can only review the existing record and cannot entertain issues not properly raised in the trial court. Consequently, the trial court's judgment is affirmed, with all judges concurring. The opinion was prepared by Retired Appellate Judge L. Charles Wright and adopted by the court.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review Limitationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court is limited to reviewing the record as presented and cannot consider issues not raised at the trial court level, particularly when a transcript or Rule 10(d) statement is missing.
Reasoning: The appellate court can only review the existing record and cannot entertain issues not properly raised in the trial court.
Forfeiture of Property Used in Illegal Activitiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled on the forfeiture of a gambling device, emphasizing that the owner's lack of knowledge about its use does not prevent condemnation if it is proven otherwise.
Reasoning: An appeal has been made regarding the forfeiture of a gambling device belonging to the Appellant, who argues that the property should not be condemned since he had no knowledge of its use for gambling, which was contrary to his instructions.
Presumption of Correctness in Absence of Transcriptsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: When no transcript or equivalent statement of evidence is provided, appellate courts presume that the trial court's findings are supported by sufficient evidence.
Reasoning: The trial court's order indicates that evidence was considered during the hearing, but without the transcript or a proper Rule 10(d) statement, it is assumed that the testimony was adequate to support the judgment.