In a crime against nature case, the court held that it was the juvenile-appellant’s responsibility to ensure that any error in the transcript due to recording problems was addressed at the trial court level. With respect to the charge based on an allegation that he placed his penis in the girl’s mouth, the transcript did not include evidence of penetration, an essential element of the offense. However, one witness testified that during her interview of the child she asked the child whether there had been penetration. The witness’s testimony about how the child answered the question was muddled and could not be determined from the transcript. The court rejected the juvenile’s argument that the adjudication must be reversed because it was impossible to determine the witness’s testimony based on the transcript. The juvenile was responsible for ensuring that the transcript was adequate to provide meaningful appellate review and should have requested a hearing to reconstruct the substance of the witness’s testimony either by stipulation or by the court. The Court of Appeals remanded for such a hearing.