State v. McMillian ( 2002 )

Justice PLEICONES,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part. I agree with the majority that a party is entitled to insist that a quorum of the Court of Appeals be present at her oral argument. I disagree, however, that petitioner is entitled to a new trial because his motion for a continuance was denied. In my view, it matters not that the court reporter in petitioner’s first trial used a stenographic machine rather than a steno-mask machine with a back-up tape: in either case, the presence of the court reporter and her record may be had through the use of a subpoena and a subpoena duces tecum. State v. Asbury, 328 S.C. 187, 493 S.E.2d 349 (1997); State v. Mansfield, 343 S.C. 66, 538 S.E.2d 257 (Ct.App.2000).

While the better practice in these situations is to grant the continuance so that a copy of the pertinent part of the transcript may be obtained, I would not find an abuse of discretion warranting a new trial here. State v. Asbury, supra.