Judge, Court of Appeals of South Carolina
State v. Fripp
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2012-03-21 · cited 4×
In State v. Fripp, Diamon Fripp was convicted of trafficking in cocaine after police found a bag of the drug near where he had been in a nightclub parking lot; he was initially detained for evading an officer investigating a disturbance, and officers also recovered cash and stones from him during a search. The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the trial judge erred by instructing the jury on both actual and constructive possession of drugs, because the facts presented—no direct observation of Fripp handling or dropping the drugs, only circumstantial evidence after he briefly disappeared behind a truck—supported only an actual-possession theory. The erroneous instruction was deemed prejudicial, as it was irrelevant, risked confusing the jury, and could have affected the verdict given the lack of direct evidence tying Fripp to the cocaine. The court did not reach Fripp’s other claims regarding his statements or the search evidence.
criminal lawprocedure
Anthony H. v. MATTHEW G.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2012-03-16 · cited 14×
This case concerned whether the South Carolina family court could terminate Matthew G.’s parental rights to his child and grant his ex-wife’s new husband’s adoption petition, or whether Georgia retained exclusive jurisdiction under prior custody orders. The South Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the family court’s termination and adoption order. It held that the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act and Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act applied to the termination proceeding, Georgia had continuing jurisdiction based on its earlier legitimation, custody, and visitation decrees, and South Carolina lacked authority to modify those decrees absent a Georgia court’s determination that it no longer had jurisdiction or that South Carolina was a more convenient forum.
family law
Sullivan v. HAWKER BEECHCRAFT CORP.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2012-02-08 · cited 15×
Matthew Sullivan sued multiple companies, including Aircraft Belt, Inc., Mena Aircraft Interiors, and Pacific Scientific, in South Carolina for injuries from a 2005 airplane crash that occurred in the state, after an Ohio lawsuit became time-barred. The trial court dismissed the claims against these out-of-state defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Sullivan failed to make a prima facie showing under South Carolina’s long-arm statute, which requires both tortious injury in the state from an out-of-state act and that the defendant regularly does business, engages in persistent conduct, or derives substantial revenue from the state; the defendants’ unrebutted affidavits showed their South Carolina contacts were minimal (under 1% of revenue, no local licenses or services). Sullivan offered no supporting evidence or discovery to contradict this, and the trial court acted within its discretion in denying further discovery or a second amended complaint because no new facts were identified that could establish jurisdiction.
proceduretorts & liability
Solley v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, INC.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2012-02-01 · cited 30×
Barbara Solley sued Navy Federal Credit Union for conversion, slander of title, and negligence after her co-owner obtained a $233,000 mortgage on their jointly owned home without her knowledge; the Bank defaulted, and after Solley elected to proceed on slander of title, a special referee awarded her actual and punitive damages. Both parties appealed, raising issues including whether Solley was required to elect remedies before the damages hearing, whether the default judgment was proper, and whether the damages awards were supported. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the default stood but that the $233,000 actual damages award was improper because the mortgage was legally ineffective under South Carolina’s joint-tenancy statute and could not encumber the property. The court also reversed the punitive damages award because Solley’s complaint contained no allegations of willful, wanton, or reckless conduct by the Bank.
propertyproceduretorts & liability
State v. Fripp
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2012-01-18 · cited 15×
In State v. Fripp, Gerald Fripp appealed his conviction for second-degree burglary of a convenience store, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing two store employees to identify him as the person on surveillance video, admitting hearsay about his clothing, accepting his police statement without a full voluntariness inquiry, introducing two prior burglary convictions, and denying a for-cause strike of a juror who was a recent robbery victim. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. It held that the employees’ identifications satisfied the requirements for lay-opinion testimony under Rule 701 because they were based on personal familiarity with Fripp and helpful to the jury; that Fripp’s Miranda warnings remained effective when he gave his statement; that the prior convictions were admissible as an essential element of second-degree burglary; and that any juror issue did not require reversal because the juror affirmed impartiality and Fripp had not exhausted his peremptory strikes.
criminal lawprocedure
Gordon v. Busbee
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2012-01-04 · cited 7×
The case involved claims by Clara Gordon Burch’s Gordon family heirs against the estate of her late husband George Burch, his children, and his attorney Jacqueline Busbee, alleging that George misused a 1995 power of attorney (lacking any gifting authority) to transfer roughly $400,000–$450,000 from Clara’s accounts and CDs into his own name or joint accounts before her 2000 death, along with related claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and improper estate administration. The circuit court denied the Gordons’ motions for directed verdict on several issues, granted directed verdicts to the defendants on most claims (including all against Dennis Burch and nearly all against Busbee and Laurie Burch), and the jury found for the remaining defendants; it also refused certain jury charges and equitable relief such as a constructive trust. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed in part, holding that factual disputes existed on joint-account ownership and that many procedural and evidentiary rulings were correct, but reversed in part because the POA did not authorize George’s self-benefiting transfers under controlling precedent and remanded for further proceedings on the affected claims.
family lawpropertytorts & liabilityprocedure