Justia South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The State appealed a circuit court order dismissing its case against Respondent Gregory Duncan. Respondent was indicted for murder after he shot and killed Christopher Spicer at his home. The court ruled that Respondent was immune from prosecution under the state Protection of Persons and Property Act. The Supreme Court found that the trial record reflected ample evidence to support the circuit court's ruling. The Court affirmed the circuit court's decision to dismiss the State's case. View "South Carolina v. Duncan" on Justia Law

Appellant Kenneth Justus was sentenced to death for the murder of Justin Bregenzer. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Appellant argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it disqualified one of his two appointed counsel. The counsel in question, Maite Murphy, had worked for the State's lead investigator as a divorce attorney. The trial court removed Ms. Murphy as Appellant's trial counsel, holding that that a former business relationship presented a conflict-of-interest issue. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to remove Appellant's counsel. View "South Carolina v. Justus" on Justia Law

Appellants South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) and three of its officers appealed a circuit court order enjoining them from forwarding certain information regarding Respondent James Compton to the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services (DPPPS). Respondent committed burglary, assault and battery, armed robbery and aggravated assault and battery in South Carolina. He fled to Georgia, but was apprehended there a short time later. Respondent voluntarily returned to South Carolina where he was prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced to life plus forty-five years' imprisonment. In 1982, Respondent was "away without leave" (AWOL) for a period of time. No charges were filed against him when he returned. In 1995, Respondent went AWOL again, but he was not returned to custody until 2002. An arrest warrant and indictment were issued on escape charges, but they were "nol prossed" when the State failed to appear before the grand jury. The circuit court issued an order in 2005 for the destruction of the arrest warrant and indictment in connection with the 1995 incident. Respondent's criminal history still referenced the 1995 charges. Respondent was not granted parole because questions regarding the 1995 escape charges persisted at DPPPS hearings. Respondent petitioned the court for a declaration that SCDC failed to comply with the court order to destroy records of his 1995 escape charges. The court found that SCDC was not in willful violation of the court orde, and that the entries were in Respondent's criminal history for security and classification purposes. The court enjoined the SCDC from forwarding information regarding the 1995 escape to DPPPS. SCDC argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the circuit court erred in granting Respondent an injunction. Upon review, the Supreme Court reasoned that "a prisoner absenting himself from a prison (commonly referred to as an escape) is a fact that exists regardless of whether charges are filed in connection with it ... Because the injunction we affirm only enjoins the dissemination of records pertaining to criminal charges and not historical facts, [SCDC] is not enjoined from forwarding information they have a duty to send to DPPPS." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "Compton v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections " on Justia Law

Petitioner Terrance Edwards appealed a circuit court order that denied him post conviction relief. Petitioner was indicted for murder, robbery, and grand larceny. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Petitioner alleged that his attorney was ineffective for failing to interview a witness whose testimony could have exonerated him. Testimony by Petitioner's trial counsel revealed that it was a strategic decision not to interview the witness. The lower court determined that Petitioner failed to establish any resulting prejudice from his attorney's actions. Upon review of Petitioner's arguments, the trial record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court found probative evidence to support the lower court's conclusion. The Court dismissed petitioner's application for post conviction relief and affirmed the lower court's decision. View "Edwards v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

Petitioner Najjar Byers unsuccessfully appealed the circuit court's denial of his motion to strike a witness' testimony at trial. On an evening in June 2005, a bingo hall was robbed at gunpoint. Police stopped a car after noticing its occupants were not wearing seat belts. Petitioner was a passenger in the car, along with three others. The driver gave police permission to search the car. Police found a cash register till, two handguns and two ski masks. The officer then received a bulletin from his radio that police were looking for a vehicle that matched the description of the car he had just pulled over. The officer took the car's occupants into custody. Petitioner was the only sober occupant at the time of the arrest. The key issue in this case was whether or not Petitioner was a passenger in the car at the time of the robbery. At trial, the State presented contradictory testimony from two of the other occupants. When defense counsel examined the other occupants, they testified they were either too drunk or too high to remember whether Petitioner was in the car. Petitioner moved to strike testimony by the occupants that he was in the car which was denied. Petitioner moved for a directed verdict at the close of the State's evidence that was also denied. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Petitioner argued that the trial and appellate courts erred in convicting him based on the evidence presented at trial. "With the greatest respect for the learned opinion of the court of appeals," the Supreme Court could "not understand the basis for its conclusion." The Court concluded, "another rational conclusion could have been reached by the jury." The Court reversed Petitioner's conviction. View "South Carolina v. Byers" on Justia Law

Defendant James Miller appealed an order of the circuit court that tolled his probation while he was civilly committed as a sexually violent predator. In 1998, Defendant pled guilty to committing a lewd act on a minor, and other domestic violence charges. The trial court sentenced Defendant to 15 years: ten years' in prison and five years' probation for the lewd act charge. The circuit court found that Defendant would benefit from supervision, and tolled Defendant's probation until his release from commitment. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court found that under the circumstances, tolling Defendant's probation was consistent with the spirit of rehabilitation and protection of the public. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision.

Defendant-Appellant Lawrence Burgess appeals his conviction for possession of crack cocaine with the intent to distribute. In his appeal, Defendant questioned the validity of a multijurisdictional narcotics enforcement agreement, the admissibility of an arresting officer's employment records, and the circumstances under which a trial judge must charge "mere presence." Defendant was arrested outside the town limits of Batesburg-Leesville by a Batesburg-Leesville officer. The officer was acting within a multijurisdictional drug enforcement unit agreement (NET agreement) signed by the Batesville-Leesville Police Department. The agreement covered all of Lexington County, which included the area outside the Batesville-Leesville town limits. Defendant alleged the officer did not have the authority to arrest him. The trial judge found the NET agreement valid, and that the officer had authority to make the arrest. Defendant then sought to have the arresting officer's employment records admitted into evidence to attempt to portray him as an "overzealous narcotics officer." The trial judge sustained the state's objection to the records' admission. Defendant also argued that none of the witnesses could testify that Defendant actually possessed the crack cocaine which was found on the ground at his arrest. The trial judge instructed the jury to consider whether Defendant had actual possession, but offered no definition of "mere presence." On review of the case, the Supreme Court found no reversible errors in the lower court's decision, and affirmed Defendant's conviction.

Appellant-Defendant Tyquan Jared Amir Jones was charged as a juvenile with murder, armed robbery and unlawful possession of a pistol. The family court waived jurisdiction and ordered Defendant be treated as an adult. Defendant plead to a lesser charge pursuant to a plea agreement. On appeal, Defendant argued the family court erred in waiving jurisdiction because it did not properly apply state law in its order, and that statements he made to police should not have been used against him because his mother was not present when he signed the waiver of rights form. The Supreme Court found that the family court properly considered all of the Kent factors in deciding to waive jurisdiction. The Court also found that Defendant never argued the statement was involuntary at trial. Finding no reversible errors, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision.