Justia South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Anthony Odom appealed his conviction for criminal solicitation of a minor. Appellant's conviction stemmed from a series of internet chat sessions with an undercover Westminster, South Carolina, city police officer posing as a fourteen-year-old girl. The internet chats took place May 4–6, 2006, in Oconee County, South Carolina. A jury found Appellant guilty of one count of criminal solicitation of a minor, based on the internet chats that occurred from May 4–5, 2006. Appellant was acquitted of the count involving a chat room conversation that allegedly occurred on May 6, 2006. The trial court sentenced Appellant to seven years' imprisonment, suspended upon the service of five years' probation, along with conditions including registering as a sex offender. Appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the officer posing as a fourteen-year-old girl should have had a bond to act in his official capacity and therefore the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the law of bonding. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "South Carolina v. Odom" on Justia Law

Petitioner Derrick McDonald and two codefendants were convicted of murder and first-degree burglary. The court of appeals affirmed, rejecting McDonald's argument that his Confrontation Clause rights were violated when the trial court admitted the redacted confession of one of his nontestifying codefendants. No defendant testified at trial. The jury found Defendants guilty of both charges. McDonald appealed, arguing that given the context, Cannon's written confession clearly implicated McDonald in the crimes. The court of appeals affirmed, "find[ing] that the neutral phrase 'another person' inserted into Cannon's statement avoided any [Confrontation Clause] violation." Cannon's confession was redacted using the phrase "another person." The Supreme Court found, after review of the trial court record, that even a casual reading of the confession made it apparent that the confession describes the actions of Cannon and two other male individuals. The Court rejected the State's invitation to find no Confrontation Clause violation based on the trial court's limiting instruction. Despite this finding, the Supreme Court concluded that in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the error in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court therefore affirmed the court of appeals as modified. View "South Carolina v. McDonald" on Justia Law

In a joint trial, petitioner Kenneth Workman and codefendant Oshawn Robinson were convicted of assault and battery, conspiracy, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, and armed robbery. After petitioner's direct appeal was dismissed pursuant to Anders, petitioner filed an application for post conviction relief (PCR), alleging trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to a coercive Allen charge and in failing to challenge the trial judge's ruling barring cross-examination of the State's witness, Timothy Wright, regarding the sentencing recommendation Wright received in exchange for testifying against petitioner and Robinson. The PCR judge denied petitioner's application for PCR, finding: (1) petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the Allen charge, as the charge was not unduly coercive; and (2) petitioner was not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to challenge the ruling barring cross-examination regarding Wright's sentence. After review, the Supreme Court found petitioner was prejudiced by trial counsel's deficient performance in failing to object to an unconstitutionally coercive Allen charge; accordingly, the Court granted his petition for a writ of certiorari, dispensed with further briefing, reversed the PCR judge's denial of relief, and remanded for a new trial. View "Workman v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the shooting death of James Salter (the victim) in a Best Buy parking lot in Myrtle Beach. It was undisputed that defendant Richard Niles, Jr., his fiancé, Mokeia Hammond, and Ervin Moore met the victim at the parking lot to purchase marijuana from him. Defendant was convicted of murder, armed robbery, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. The trial court instructed the jury on the law of murder and self-defense, but refused defendant's request to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter, reasoning that the evidence showed defendant was either guilty of murder or he was not guilty of any crime based on his claim of self-defense. The court of appeals reversed defendant's murder conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, finding the evidence compelled a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter. Specifically, the court of appeals found there was evidence of sufficient legal provocation based on defendant's testimony that he shot at the victim only after the victim began shooting first. The Supreme Court granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to consider the State's argument that the court of appeals erred in determining defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter because there was no evidence at trial that defendant acted in the sudden heat of passion. After review, the Supreme Court reversed: defendant's own testimony did not establish that he was overtaken by a sudden heat of passion such that he had an uncontrollable impulse to do violence. "Rather, Niles testified that he did not want to hurt the victim; that he shot with his eyes closed; that he was merely attempting to stop the victim from shooting; and that when he shot his gun, he was thinking of Hammond rather than of perpetrating violence upon the victim. In other words, there was nothing sudden about Niles's decision to shoot the victim. Thus, we hold that the evidence did not warrant a voluntary manslaughter charge." View "South Carolina v. Niles" on Justia Law

Mark Baker was convicted of four counts of committing a lewd act upon a minor. In October 2004, Victim Two, Baker's youngest niece, informed her mother that "Uncle Mark was messing with" her older sister, Victim One. At that time, Victim Two denied that Baker had molested her. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Following the denial of his petition for rehearing, Baker petitioned the Supreme Court for review. The Court granted certiorari to analyze whether: (1) the trial judge erred in refusing to quash the indictments, which alleged the offenses occurred over a six-year time frame; and (2) qualifying a witness as an expert in forensic interviewing. After review, the Court reversed Baker's convictions because the Court found the indictments were unconstitutionally overbroad. View "South Carolina v. Baker" on Justia Law

Appellant George Chavis was convicted of multiple crimes involving unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, Appellant's step-daughter. The issues this case presented for the Supreme Court's review concerned the qualification and testimony of two child abuse assessment experts. Finding no reversible error as to the trial court's actions with regard to the experts, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "South Carolina v. Chavis" on Justia Law

Appellant Jaquwn Brewer was convicted of multiple charges in connection with the shooting of two individuals at a nightclub. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court concerned the admission of Brewer's unredacted audiotaped interrogation by the police. The Court found the admission of Brewer's interrogation was error. Nevertheless, the Court affirmed Brewer's convictions for assault and battery with intent to kill and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, finding the admission error was harmless with respect to these charges. The murder conviction was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial. View "South Carolina v. Brewer" on Justia Law

Appellant Kenneth Morris, II appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress ecstasy and marijuana discovered during a traffic stop, arguing they were obtained as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding the officers had both reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the entire vehicle. View "South Carolina v. Morris" on Justia Law

Appellant Charvus Nesbitt appealed a circuit court judgment finding that he entered a knowing and voluntary "Alford" plea to three of four charges listed in a negotiated plea agreement. On appeal, he argued that his plea agreement was a "package deal," and because his plea for one of the charges was invalid, please for the remaining charges were also invalid. The State conceded that the circuit court erred in failing to properly question and advise appellant of his rights with respect to the the charge appellant alleged was invalid. When the terms and obligations set forth in a plea agreement are not fulfilled, appellate courts may consider whether that failure constitutes harmless error. Here, Appellant received the forty-year sentence which he negotiated, and further received the benefit of having one of the charges against him essentially dropped, as his criminal record will only reflect three convictions and not four. Therefore, to the extent there was error, Appellant has suffered no prejudice. As such, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court. View "South Carolina v. Nesbitt" on Justia Law

In 2007, respondent Alonzo Hawes shot and killed his estranged wife in the presence of their children. Following a guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter, the trial court granted Hawes's section 16-25-90 motion for eligibility for early parole, which the court of appeals affirmed. The South Carolina Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision. Because the trial court failed to exercise discretion, which the Supreme Court concluded was likely the result of its reliance on a prior version of section 16-25-90, it vacated the court of appeals' opinion and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the correct version of the statute. View "South Carolina v. Hawes" on Justia Law