Fuller v. Fuller
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2012-01-25 · cited 4×
In Fuller v. Fuller, a South Carolina family court reduced a divorced husband's monthly alimony obligation from $1,200 to $250 after he sought modification, citing his age and health issues including multiple knee surgeries. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the family court judge erred by focusing almost exclusively on the husband's age of 67, repeatedly stating he would not require a man that age to work, and excluding relevant evidence such as medical testimony about the husband's ability to work or earning capacity. The appeals court reasoned that alimony modification requires consideration of all statutory factors under South Carolina law, including the parties' financial situations and the original alimony order, rather than age alone or a mischaracterization of the issue as whether the husband must return to employment.
family law
State v. Johnson
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2012-01-04
In State v. Johnson, the defendant was convicted of DUI in magistrate court after a jury was selected from a pool of 33 potential jurors, even though the magistrate had initially drawn 75 names as required by S.C. Code § 22-2-90. Johnson appealed, arguing that the statute mandated at least 40 jurors be available for selection, and the circuit court reversed the conviction on that ground. The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court and reinstated the conviction, holding that the statute requires only that a sufficient number of names be drawn in advance (here, 75), not that a minimum number actually appear on the day of trial. The court reasoned that the statutes governing magistrate court juries set no fixed minimum for jurors present, that 33 available jurors were enough to seat a six-member jury after peremptory strikes, and that Johnson suffered no prejudice from the process.
criminal lawprocedure
Clark v. State
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2011-12-07
In Clark v. State, Anthony Clark was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment after a jury trial; no direct appeal was filed, and his subsequent application for post-conviction relief was denied by the PCR court on grounds that his testimony about requesting an appeal was not credible. Clark petitioned for a belated review of his direct appeal under White v. State, and the South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari to address both the PCR denial and the underlying claim that the trial court erred in denying a directed verdict for insufficient evidence. The court reversed the PCR denial, holding that trial counsel failed to ensure Clark was made fully aware of his right to appeal after conviction and that there was no probative evidence of a knowing and intelligent waiver, but it affirmed the murder conviction after reviewing the direct appeal issue. The court reasoned that multiple witnesses' testimony identifying Clark as the shooter or linking him to the scene and statements after the shooting constituted sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury, with any discrepancies in the evidence presenting questions of credibility rather than grounds for a directed verdict.
criminal lawprocedure
Kimmer v. Wright
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2011-11-02 · cited 1×
In Kimmer v. Wright, the personal representative of a worker injured in a 1999 car accident sued attorney Philip Wright for legal malpractice, alleging that Wright's unauthorized settlement of a third-party claim without notice to the employer caused the denial of workers' compensation benefits. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, holding that the statute of limitations had not run because it was triggered by the workers' compensation commission's adverse ruling. The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the three-year limitations period began to run no later than February 2000, when Wright informed Kimmer of the settlement error, advised him to obtain new counsel, and Kimmer signed a waiver acknowledging a potential claim against Wright. The court explained that under the discovery rule, actual knowledge of the injury and its cause starts the clock, the prior denial of summary judgment was not law of the case, and the parties' tolling agreement could not revive an already time-barred claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability
State v. Chisholm
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2011-10-26 · cited 6×
In State v. Chisholm, Jerome Chisholm was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor after his six-year-old stepdaughter’s mother interrupted him during an alleged assault, leading to a sexual assault examination, DNA testing of the child’s underwear that matched Chisholm’s profile, and later medical testing that revealed the child was HIV positive. Chisholm appealed, arguing the State lacked probable cause for his DNA buccal swabs, the trial court should have excluded the HIV test results for lack of chain of custody and undue prejudice, and a mistrial should have been granted when the child’s doctor testified that the victim said Chisholm “did something bad.” The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that any evidentiary errors were harmless because the brief hearsay remark was cumulative to the direct identifications by the victim and her mother, the DNA evidence was properly obtained and overwhelmingly incriminating, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Hill
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2011-07-27 · cited 17×
The case involved Leon Hill's convictions for two counts of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the first degree and two counts of lewd act upon a child, based on testimony from the eleven-year-old victim and supporting evidence from medical experts, a forensic interviewer, and a witness. Hill appealed the trial court's rulings on the jury pool selection process, admission of a DVD recording of the victim's forensic interview along with related expert testimony, denial of a mistrial motion over undisclosed impeachment evidence, and jury instructions regarding corroboration of the victim's testimony. The appellate court affirmed the convictions in full, determining that the trial judge had properly handled each of the challenged issues without reversible error.
criminal lawprocedure