Justia South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Barry Clarke brought this action for specific performance of a right of first refusal. Clarke owned a strip club at 2015 Pittsburgh Avenue in Charleston, South Carolina. Group Investment Company, Inc., whose shareholders were John Robinson and Robin Robinson, owned a strip club across the street at 2028 Pittsburgh Avenue (the Subject Property). The Subject Property included buildings, a parking lot, and other land. In 1999, Clarke and Group Investment entered into a recorded lease that allowed Clarke to use half of the parking spaces located on the Subject Property. In 2007, Group Investment conveyed the Subject Property to RRJR, LLC for the stated consideration of $5.00. John Robinson and Robin Robinson were members of RRJR. Clarke testified he "probably" knew Group Investment transferred the Subject Property to RRJR, but Clarke claimed he did not seek to exercise the Right at that time because Group Investment and RRJR were "the same people." In 2013, RRJR conveyed the Subject Property to Fine Housing for $150,000.00. Fine Housing's closing attorney did not take note of the Lease or the Right prior to the closing, but Fine Housing conceded it had record notice of both the Lease and the Right. Neither Fine Housing nor RRJR notified Clarke of the sale of the Subject Property. Clarke learned of the sale in March 2014, and in May 2015, Clarke initiated this action for specific performance against Fine Housing and RRJR. RRJR did not answer and was in default. After a bench trial, the trial court ruled the Right was enforceable as to the entire Subject Property and ordered Fine Housing to convey title to the Subject Property to Clarke upon his payment of $350,000.00. The court of appeals reversed, holding the Right was an unreasonable restraint on alienation and was therefore unenforceable. The South Carolina Supreme Court found the Right did not identify the property it encumbered, contain price provisions, or contain procedures governing the exercise of the Right. Therefore, the Court concluded the Right was an unreasonable restraint on alienation, and affirmed the court of appeals' holding that the Right was unenforceable. View "Clarke v. Fine Housing, Inc." on Justia Law

Jaron Gibbs was convicted of murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred in (1) allowing Detective Michael Arflin to present lay testimony about single and double action revolvers and (2) allowing the State to reference Arflin's testimony in its closing argument. The court of appeals affirmed Gibbs's convictions. The South Carolina Supreme Court found that because the court of appeals held Arflin's personal knowledge rendered the lay testimony proper, it did not squarely address whether the trial court erred in finding this subject matter was not outside the ordinary knowledge of most jurors. In any event, the Court determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the testimony did not have to be given by an expert. The Court therefore affirmed the court of appeals as modified and hedld the trial court did not err in admitting Arflin's lay testimony. Likewise, the Court found the solicitor's closing was "certainly proper" when viewed as a reply to Gibbs's theory of the case. "Under the invited reply doctrine, conduct that would be improper otherwise may be appropriate if made in response to statements or arguments made by the defense." The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' analysis and held the trial court did not err with respect to the solicitor's closing argument. View "South Carolina v. Gibbs" on Justia Law

Respondent Myra Windham was seriously injured while driving a rental car that was considered a temporary substitute vehicle under her State Farm policy. In this declaratory judgment action instituted by Petitioner State Farm, the issue this case presented for the South Carolina Supreme Court's determination was whether Windham could stack her underinsured motorist ("UIM") coverage pursuant to section 38-77-160 of the South Carolina Code. The circuit court agreed with State Farm that stacking was prohibited, and the court of appeals reversed. Because both parties offered reasonable interpretations of the policy language, the Supreme Court found an ambiguity existed, which it construed against the drafter. Accordingly, the Court agreed with the court of appeals that Windham could stack, and affirmed as modified. View "State Farm v. Windham" on Justia Law

Angela Brewer was convicted of homicide by child abuse after her thirteen-month-old grandson died from drinking lemonade mixed with oxycodone. Brewer contended the court of appeals erred in upholding the trial court's admission of an interrogation video when she was under the influence of medication. She also raised an issue relating to the scope of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause when the State sought to introduce the contents of a toxicology report from an out-of-state laboratory through a pathologist who did not perform the actual testing. The trial court concluded the toxicology report was not testimonial in nature, thereby removing it from the confines of the Sixth Amendment, and the court of appeals affirmed. While the South Carolina Supreme Court saw no error in admitting the interrogation video, it reversed Brewer's conviction and sentence based on a Confrontation Clause violation: "the Confrontation Clause mandates that an individual who actually performed the forensic testing be subject to cross- examination." View "South Carolina v. Brewer" on Justia Law

Victim, who was fifteen at the time of trial, alleged she was sexually assaulted on multiple occasions by respondent Charles Rampey, her stepfather, when she was eleven and twelve years old. Victim testified that sometime around her birthday in June of 2013, Rampey called Victim into a room and forced her to touch his penis. On another occasion, Victim testified that Rampey had her perform oral sex on him. This escalated to multiple instances of sexual intercourse, according to Victim. In this criminal sexual conduct case with a minor, the trial judge gave an Allen charge to the jury after approximately two hours and twenty minutes of deliberations. About an hour and fifteen minutes later, the jury returned with a not guilty verdict as to criminal sexual conduct with a minor (CSC) in the second degree and a guilty verdict as to CSC third degree. Rampey, appealed, asserting the Allen charge was unconstitutionally coercive. The court of appeals reversed the conviction in an unpublished opinion, primarily citing to South Carolina v. Taylor, 829 S.E.2d 723 (Ct. App. 2019). Finding no reversible error in the appellate court's judgment, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed. "The trial court's overemphasis of the resources expended and the need for a verdict, combined with the absence of the critical cautionary language despite being requested by defense counsel, renders the charge unconstitutional and warrants a new trial. Moreover, the post-verdict polling of the jurors by the trial court did not cure this error." View "South Carolina v. Rampey" on Justia Law

Petitioner Michael Frasier was convicted of trafficking cocaine in excess of 100 grams after police discovered cocaine during a traffic stop for an inoperable brake light. The questions this appeal presented for the the South Carolina Supreme Court's review centered on whether police had reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic encounter and whether Frasier consented to the search. The trial court concluded the officer had reasonable suspicion and Frasier consented, and the court of appeals affirmed. In deciding these two issues, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of its standard of review in the Fourth Amendment context. Ultimately, the Court reversed the court of appeals because law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic stop, and Frasier did not consent to the search. View "South Carolina v. Frasier" on Justia Law

Petitioner John McCarty was charged with murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. Petitioner maintained he acted in defense of another and moved for immunity from criminal prosecution pursuant to the South Carolina Protection of Persons and Property Act ("Act"). After a pretrial hearing, the circuit court denied the motion, and Petitioner was subsequently tried and convicted as charged. On appeal, Petitioner challenged the circuit court's ruling as to immunity, and the court of appeals affirmed. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider Petitioner's arguments that: (1) the court of appeals erred in failing to hold the circuit court abdicated its role as the fact-finder by ruling a jury, not the court, must decide whether the individual Petitioner was defending was without fault in bringing on the difficulty; and (2) the Supreme Court should conclude Petitioner was entitled to immunity. The Supreme Court agreed with Petitioner as to the first issue, but held the issue of immunity should be decided in the first instance by the circuit court. As a result, the Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded the matter to the circuit court to make the necessary findings. View "South Carolina v. McCarty" on Justia Law

Jimi Redman shot and killed Lynn Harrison with a rifle while both were in their vehicles at a stoplight. Immediately before the shooting, Redman, who was driving a Ford Escape, approached Harrison's GMC in the lane to her right. A witness, who was directly behind Harrison in the left lane, saw Redman make hand gestures and blow kisses toward Harrison. There is no evidence that Harrison attempted to evade Redman or that she even saw his gestures. Instead, as the two vehicles stopped at the red light, Redman pulled out a rifle and fired one shot which traveled through Harrison's passenger side window, killing her. Redman subsequently sped away, while Harrison's vehicle, which was still in drive, crept forward until coming to rest in the median. Redman was arrested a few blocks away. The issue this case presented for the South Carolina Supreme Court's review was whether uninsured or underinsured benefits could be recovered when an individual was shot and killed by another motorist as both cars were stopped at a traffic light. In deciding this question, the Court revisited and attempted to clarify conflicting jurisprudence as to whether such injuries arise out of the "ownership, maintenance, or use" of an automobile. To this, the Court held that gunshot injuries do not arise out of the use of an automobile. Therefore, it reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the judgment of the circuit court. View "Progressive Direct v. Groves" on Justia Law

This case arose from a construction defect suit brought by a number of homeowners (Petitioners) against their homebuilder and general contractor, Lennar Carolinas, LLC (Lennar). Lennar moved to compel arbitration, citing the arbitration provisions in a series of contracts signed by Petitioners at the time they purchased their homes. Petitioners pointed to purportedly unconscionable provisions in the contracts generally and in the arbitration provision specifically. Citing a number of terms in the contracts, and without delineating between the contracts generally and the arbitration provision specifically, the circuit court denied Lennar's motion to compel, finding the contracts were grossly one-sided and unconscionable and, thus, the arbitration provisions contained within those contracts were unenforceable. The court of appeals reversed, explaining that the United States Supreme Court's holding in Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co. forbade consideration of unconscionable terms outside of an arbitration provision (the Prima Paint doctrine). The court of appeals found the circuit court's analysis ran afoul of the Prima Paint doctrine as it relied on the oppressive nature of terms outside of the arbitration provisions. While the South Carolina Supreme Court agreed that the circuit court violated the Prima Paint doctrine, it nonetheless agreed with Petitioners and found the arbitration provisions, standing alone, contained a number of oppressive and one-sided terms, thereby rendering the provisions unconscionable and unenforceable under South Carolina law. The Court further declined to sever the unconscionable terms from the remainder of the arbitration provisions, as "it would encourage sophisticated parties to intentionally insert unconscionable terms—that often go unchallenged—throughout their contracts, believing the courts would step in and rescue the party from its gross overreach. ... Rather, we merely recognize that where a contract would remain one-sided and be fragmented after severance, the better policy is to decline the invitation for judicial severance." View "Damico v. Lennar Carolinas, LLC et al." on Justia Law

Travis Green presented a facial challenge to South Carolina's civil asset forfeiture statutory scheme following law enforcement's seizure of cash and contraband during the execution of a search warrant. The circuit court concluded sections 44-53-520 and -530 of the South Carolina Code (2018) were facially unconstitutional under both the Excessive Fines Clause and the Due Process Clause of the federal and state constitutions. An undercurrent of this case was Green's claim that the civil forfeiture process is ripe for abuse. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's order because Green failed to overcome the high threshold for finding a statute facially unconstitutional. Green answered the Solicitor's petition and demanded a jury trial. The circuit court considered and ruled upon the constitutionality of the forfeiture statutes in the very early stages of this litigation. The case was therefore remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Richardson v. Twenty Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-One, U.S. Currency" on Justia Law