Justia South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Donta Reid challenged the trial court's failure to suppress his confession, arguing it was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding the facts of this case fell within the purview of "Montejo v. Louisiana," (556 U.S. 778 (2009)). Furthermore contended the trial court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict of acquittal on the charges for possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime because the State failed to prove he actually or constructively possessed a firearm. The Supreme Court found those charges were properly submitted to the jury and therefore affirmed his convictions. View "South Carolina v. Reid" on Justia Law

Appellant Anthony Nation appealed a circuit court's decision to statutorily impose lifetime global positioning satellite (GPS) monitoring on him due to his prior guilty plea for a sex offense with a minor and subsequent probation violations. On appeal, Appellant brought various constitutional challenges to section 23-3-540 and contests the validity of five of our previous decisions involving the South Carolina Sex Offender Registry and statutory authorization of GPS monitoring of sex offenders. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "South Carolina v. Nation" on Justia Law

Lawrence Burgess was convicted of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute and sentenced to three years in prison and ordered to pay a $25,000 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Following the denial of his petition for rehearing, Burgess petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review the decision. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted the petition to review whether: (1) the multi-jurisdictional drug-enforcement agreement (which formed the purported basis of the arresting officer's authority to arrest Burgess outside of the officer's territorial jurisdiction) satisfied the statutory prerequisites to constitute a valid agreement; and (2) whether Burgess should have been permitted to cross-examine the arresting officer with his personnel records pursuant to Rule 608(c) of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. Although the Supreme Court found the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed Burgess's conviction, it disagreed with the court's conclusion regarding the multijurisdictional drug-enforcement agreement. Accordingly, the Court affirmed as modified. View "South Carolina v. Burgess" on Justia Law

Appellant Ashley Hepburn appealed her conviction for homicide by child abuse. Sixteen-month-old Audrina Hepburn became unresponsive and was admitted to the hospital one evening in 2009. No one (including appellant) disputed the child died from child abuse. Only two people could have killed the child: appellant or her then-boyfriend, co-defendant Brandon Lewis. The jury found Appellant guilty of homicide by child abuse and Lewis guilty of aiding and abetting homicide by child abuse. The trial court sentenced Appellant to 45 years' imprisonment and Lewis to ten years' imprisonment suspended upon the service of seven years. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. Appellant argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the trial court erred in denying her mid-trial motion for directed verdict. After its review, the Supreme Court found the trial court should have granted appellant's motion, and directed a verdict of acquittal. View "South Carolina v. Hepburn" on Justia Law

Petitioner Richard Jordan appealed the denial of his application for post-conviction relief. Petitioner was arrested and later indicted for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and trafficking in methamphetamine. At the suggestion of his girlfriend Cynthia Summers, petitioner retained attorney Harry DePew to represent him on the methamphetamine charges. DePew was then representing Summers on an unrelated charge. DePew did not inform the trial court at any time that he represented both petitioner and Summers. At trial, evidence was introduced pointing to Summers' involvement with the methamphetamine lab operation. The trial court invited Petitioner to present evidence as to Summers' third-party guilt. DePew, however, did not present any evidence to incriminate Summers, though Petitioner testified at the PCR hearing that he had several witnesses that were prepared to testify as to Summers' guilt. Petitioner was convicted on both charges and sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. Petitioner later sought PCR alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because DePew's dual representation of petitioner and Summers constituted an actual conflict of interest. During the PCR hearing, petitioner testified that he was not informed of the conflict of interest, did not waive the conflict of interest, and wanted to present a third-party guilt defense as to Summers. View "Jordan v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

Appellant James Curry, Jr. was convicted and sentenced for voluntary manslaughter and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act, and because Appellant was not prejudiced by the section 16-11-440(C) jury instruction given at his trial, Appellant's convictions and sentence were affirmed.View "South Carolina v. Curry" on Justia Law

Appellant Damien Inman was convicted and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the robbery, kidnapping, and murder of Mary Stutts. Appellant was seventeen years old at the time of the crimes. On appeal, Appellant challenged his convictions on several grounds, including that the circuit court improperly granted the State's motion pursuant to "Batson v. Kentucky" after Appellant offered a race-neutral explanation for striking a particular juror. The Supreme Court agreed after review and reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. View "South Carolina v. Inman" on Justia Law

Appellant William Mark Brockmeyer appealed his convictions for murder and possession of a weapon during a violent crime, raising constitutional challenges to both the trial court's refusal to enforce a subpoena concerning the identity of an internet commenter and the admission of certain chain-of-custody testimony and other photographic evidence at trial. The theory of appellant's defense was that the shooting was an accident. An issue arose over posted comments to a news article by a local television station. Appellant wanted evidence supporting his claim of accident and being emotionally upset after the shooting, and contended the online post suggested its author had direct knowledge of the incident and supported his claim of accident. Accordingly, appellant served the television station with a subpoena seeking the user's gender, year of birth, ZIP code, name and email address (all requirements for creating a user account on the station's website to publish comments online). The television station resisted the subpoena on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. Appellant argued his constitutional right to a fair trial required disclosure of the identity of the commenter. The Supreme Court concluded after its review of the trial court record, that the subpoena issue was not properly preserved for appeal, and even if it had been, the trial court's refusal to enforce the subpoena was not reversible error. Finding no other reversible errors, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court in all other respects. View "South Carolina v. Brockmeyer" on Justia Law

The Court granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to review an unpublished Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the circuit court's suppression of respondent Philip Sawyer's breath test results and video in a prosecution for driving under the influence (DUI). In 2007, respondent was taken to the Spartanburg County Jail following a traffic stop made by a certified Data Master operator. Respondent was placed in the "subject test area" which is a room that adjoins the Data Master room. A deputy retrieved some forms from the Data Master room and then appeared to read respondent his Miranda rights and the implied consent information. Both respondent and the deputy signed the forms. There were separate audio and video recording devices in both the subject test area and in the breathalyzer room. In this case, the audio device in the subject test area did not function. Respondent moved to suppress the evidence relating to the breath test site alleging the videotape did not meet the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. 56-5-2953(A), which required that a person charged with DUI have his conduct at both the incident site and the breath test site videotaped. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a videotape from the breath test site that lacked the audio portion of the reading of Miranda rights and the informed consent law did not satisfy the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. 56-52953(A)(2) (2006). View "South Carolina v. Sawyer" on Justia Law

Following his conviction for one count of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN), one count of possession of a dangerous animal, and multiple counts of animal fighting, David Tant was remanded to the Department of Corrections. Upon receipt of his sentencing sheets, the Department recorded his sentence as fifteen years' imprisonment. However, the Department later determined the judge intended to sentence Tant to forty years' imprisonment and changed its records without notifying Tant. The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court was whether the Department of Corrections had the authority to alter its initial determination as to the length of an inmate's sentence. The Court held that when the Department decides its original recordation of a sentence was erroneous, it must afford the inmate formal notice of the amended sentence and advise him of his opportunity to be heard through the grievance procedure. Furthermore, "the Department is generally confined to the face of the sentencing sheets in determining the length of a sentence, but may refer to the sentencing transcript if there is an ambiguity in the sentencing sheets." Because the Court found that the sentencing sheets and the transcript in this case were ambiguous, it held Tant's sentences ran concurrently for a total of fifteen years' imprisonment. View "Tant v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law