Paula H. Thomas

In State v. Adams, Alfred Adams appealed his conviction for trafficking cocaine, arguing that the trial court should have suppressed 141 grams of cocaine found on his person because police had installed a GPS tracking device on his car without a warrant. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The court held that attaching and monitoring the device without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment under United States v. Jones, but the resulting evidence did not require suppression. It reasoned that the traffic stop was independently justified by the officer’s observation of two lane changes without signals, the brief dog sniff occurred during that lawful stop, and the pat-down that uncovered the drugs was a valid safety measure performed before the license check was complete.

criminal lawprocedure

In Mullarkey v. Mullarkey, the South Carolina Court of Appeals addressed a dispute over a 1999 family court order that awarded a wife 43.8% of her husband's disposable military retirement pay as part of a property division in a separate support and maintenance action. The husband sought to enforce or modify the order after his 2009 retirement, arguing that the percentage should apply only to the retirement benefits he had accrued during the marriage up to the time of the 1999 order (252 months of service), rather than his full career total including post-1999 service. The family court denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the 1999 order was intended to divide only the benefits earned by that date and functioned like a qualified domestic relations order based on the circumstances at the time of the parties' separation. The court directed the Department of Defense Finance and Accounting Service to recalculate the wife's share accordingly, retroactive to the start of payments, with reimbursement for any excess amounts, and remanded the issue of attorney’s fees for reconsideration.

family lawproperty

In State v. Elwell, the State appealed the trial court's pretrial dismissal of a second-offense DUI charge against Justin Elwell. The court had ruled that police violated S.C. Code § 56-5-2953(A)(2)(d) by stopping the breath-test-site video recording immediately after Elwell refused the test and before the full twenty-minute pre-test waiting period had elapsed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial, holding that the statute's requirement to record the "required twenty-minute pre-test waiting period" applies only when a breath test is actually administered. Because longstanding precedent (State v. Jansen) establishes that the waiting period itself is unnecessary once a suspect refuses, the refusal both eliminates the recording obligation and supplies a "valid reason" under subsection (B) to excuse any gap in the video.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Morris, Kenneth Darrell Morris was pulled over for a traffic violation while driving a rented car, after which officers observed hollowed cigar blunts and loose tobacco, learned of his prior drug arrest, noted inconsistent travel stories from him and his passenger, and claimed to smell burnt marijuana; they ultimately searched the trunk without a warrant or consent and found ecstasy pills, later discovering marijuana during an inventory search. Morris was convicted of trafficking ecstasy and marijuana possession with intent to distribute after the trial court denied his motion to suppress the drugs. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court’s factual findings—including the credibility of the officer’s marijuana odor testimony and the indications of recent marijuana use—were supported by the record and, under the deferential “any evidence” standard of review, established probable cause to search the entire vehicle under the automobile exception.

criminal lawprocedure

In this divorce case, Jetter Pittman appealed the family court's awards of permanent periodic alimony, equitable division of marital property, and attorney's fees to Gloria Pittman. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the alimony award of $600 per month, the $12,500 contribution to wife's attorney's fees, and the classification and valuation of the husband's surveying business as a fully marital asset subject to equitable division, reasoning that the parties' joint efforts during the marriage—including wife's financial and operational contributions—transmuted the business into marital property. The court also upheld the denial of credits to husband for temporary alimony payments and premarital business value. It reversed only the award of a laptop computer to wife, holding that the device, purchased with business funds after filing, should have been included in husband's award of the business to achieve equitable division.

family lawproperty

The case involved a contract dispute between Stevens Aviation and DynCorp over a subcontract for aircraft maintenance work on C-12, RC-12, and UC-35 planes under a federal prime contract. Stevens sued DynCorp for allegedly diverting covered maintenance work to other providers, and the circuit court granted partial summary judgment to Stevens, ruling that the subcontract incorporated a prior Teaming Agreement and formed an enforceable requirements contract. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the subcontract's plain language superseded the Teaming Agreement except for a proprietary data provision, did not obligate DynCorp to direct exclusive work to Stevens, and therefore did not create a requirements contract as a matter of law. The court also noted that summary judgment was granted without adequate opportunity for discovery on the issues presented.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a married couple's lawsuit against their automobile insurer to reform their policy to add underinsured motorist coverage at the same limits as their liability coverage after they were injured in a motorcycle accident. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer, ruling that it had made a meaningful offer of UIM coverage and that the wife's signed rejection of the offer was binding on both spouses. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, holding that the wife had implied authority to handle insurance matters for her husband so long as she made no unilateral changes and consulted him first. It reversed in part and remanded, however, because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the wife acted within the scope of that authority when rejecting UIM coverage and because the insurer had not established estoppel or ratification as a matter of law.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a slander action brought by Lawton Limehouse against attorney Paul Hulsey and his firm over statements made in a prior RICO class action lawsuit against Limehouse and his business. After removal to federal court and remand, the state trial court entered default against Hulsey for failing to answer timely and later conducted a jury trial on damages that awarded over $7.3 million. The Court of Appeals affirmed the default judgment and damages award. It held that mailing of a certified copy of the remand order is not required for the state court to regain jurisdiction, that the entry of default was proper and not subject to being set aside, and that the damages trial and punitive award complied with due process and other requirements.

proceduretorts & liability

In this probate case, Carolyn Rider appealed a court order ruling that $304,082.46 in mutual fund shares remained part of her late husband Charles Rider's estate rather than valid inter vivos gifts to her. The probate court had determined that the transfers, initiated by an entitlement order under the South Carolina Uniform Commercial Code Article 8 before his death, were not completed by the securities intermediary Wachovia until after the bank received notice of his death. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Investment Agency Agreement terminated upon the husband's death under agency principles, which overrode the effectiveness of the entitlement order for purposes of completing the transfers. The core reasoning was that Wachovia's authority ended with actual knowledge of death, and evidence showed the final transfer was not carried out beforehand.

property

Denise Murphy was convicted of driving under the influence following a traffic stop in which an officer conducted field sobriety tests and a Datamaster breath test that showed a blood alcohol level of 0.13. She appealed on grounds that the incident-site videotape failed to fully record two of the sobriety tests and that the breath-test results should have been suppressed because the device later required repairs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling that the version of S.C. Code § 56-5-2953 then in effect did not require complete video capture of every field sobriety test and that evidence of the device's subsequent repairs did not undermine the admissibility of the test results.

criminal lawprocedure

In this personal injury case, plaintiff James Kase sued Michael Ebert for assault and battery after a minor vehicle collision at a truck stop escalated into a physical fight that injured Kase, and sued Ebert's employer DMX Transportation under theories of respondeat superior, negligent hiring, training, supervision, retention, and entrustment. The trial court granted summary judgment to DMX, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that Ebert was acting outside the course and scope of his employment for personal reasons, so DMX had no vicarious liability. It further held that the negligence claims failed as a matter of law because the altercation did not occur on DMX premises or involve Ebert's use of a DMX vehicle, as required under the applicable Restatement (Second) of Torts section 317 standard for employer liability.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this personal injury case, William Curtis sued Brandon Blake for negligence after Blake's pickup truck disregarded a stop sign and collided with Curtis's tractor-trailer, causing Curtis neck and back injuries that required chiropractic and medical treatment. Blake admitted negligence at trial, leaving the jury to decide only the amount of damages; it awarded Curtis $450,000. Blake appealed, arguing the verdict was excessive, unsupported by evidence, and tainted by improper witness testimony and brief jury deliberations, and seeking relief under motions for new trial or the thirteenth juror doctrine. The court affirmed, holding that the award was supported by the medical evidence of Curtis's injuries and treatment, the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying the new-trial motions, and no reversible procedural errors occurred.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Pearl Williams sued Dean Smalls for personal injuries after her car collided with his escaped cows on a public highway, claiming both negligence and strict liability under section 47-7-130 of the South Carolina Code, which addresses liability for trespassing livestock. Williams conceded the negligence claim, and the trial court granted summary judgment to Smalls on the strict liability claim, interpreting the statute as limited to real property damage. The appellate court affirmed as modified, holding that the statute's plain language imposes strict liability for personal injury caused by trespassing stock on private land but does not extend to livestock found at large on public roadways. The court reasoned that the statute's focus on trespassing stock and the state's existing negligence standard for highway collisions, as reflected in related statutes and precedents, required proof of negligence rather than strict liability in this context.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case arose after the Florence County Sheriff's Office seized inventory from James David Farmer's retail clothing store under a search warrant for alleged counterfeit goods and pirated recordings; Farmer later pled guilty to one charge, had the others dismissed, and demanded return of the non-conviction-related items, which the office did not provide. He sued for negligence, conversion, and civil conspiracy seeking damages, while the office asserted defenses including immunity under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. The trial court ordered return of the unrelated clothing and shoes but declined to hold a damages hearing or allow the private claims to proceed, describing the outcome as a compromise. On appeal, the court affirmed the return order because the office had not instituted required forfeiture proceedings, but remanded the dismissal of Farmer's tort claims for a proper summary judgment analysis with findings of fact and conclusions of law.

criminal lawpropertyproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Gibson, Adams Gibson and his brother Jacques were convicted of murder after a shooting during a fight in a bar parking lot that killed Dennis Irby with a single 9mm bullet. Adams appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for a directed verdict and its refusal to give a jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that witness testimony provided sufficient evidence of Adams's involvement to support the verdict and that an involuntary manslaughter charge was unwarranted because the admitted facts showed an intentional firing of the weapon.

criminal law

The case concerned whether Margaret O'Shea, who worked as a court-appointed mitigation specialist in South Carolina death penalty cases by compiling social histories, gathering documents, and interviewing witnesses under defense attorneys' direction, was required to maintain a private investigator license from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED). After O'Shea's license lapsed and SLED sought to inspect her files as part of a renewal application, she challenged the licensing requirement in the Administrative Law Court (ALC). The ALC ruled that no license was needed for her mitigation work and that her files were protected by the work product doctrine. On appeal, the court affirmed the ALC, determining based on statutory interpretation that the licensing statute's definition of private investigator does not apply to individuals performing such services as part of an attorney's defense team in capital cases.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a commercial lease for twenty acres of property in South Carolina, under which United Energy Distributors leased land from James McNair (later inherited by his son Carlisle McNair) for diesel fuel operations. The lease provided for an initial five-year term starting in 2002, with an option to renew for three additional five-year periods at a 10% rent increase, and the tenant claimed to have exercised the first renewal after the initial term ended in 2007 by continuing payments and making substantial improvements. McNair sought to eject the tenant as a holdover after demanding higher rent, but a magistrate and the circuit court found that United Energy had validly renewed the lease. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the lease terms allowed renewal through conduct consistent with the option and that the magistrate had jurisdiction to consider equitable defenses in the landlord-tenant matter.

property

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Franklin Hutson, a crane operator injured while working for the South Carolina State Ports Authority. After reaching maximum medical improvement, the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission awarded benefits based on a thirty-percent loss of use to his back but denied additional compensation under the general disability provisions due to insufficient evidence of lost earning capacity. The court affirmed the denial of general disability benefits, finding substantial evidence supported the commission's determination that Hutson could pursue other employment like running a restaurant. However, the court remanded the case for further findings on whether Hutson was entitled to additional scheduled compensation for injuries to his leg.

labor & employmentprocedure

This workers’ compensation case concerned whether Liberty Mutual Insurance Corporation validly canceled W.R. Crews, Inc.’s policy for noncompliance with audit requests related to a prior policy. The circuit court ruled the cancellation invalid and remanded for an order directing Liberty Mutual to pay benefits and provide treatment to claimant William R. Crews. Liberty Mutual appealed, but the appellate court affirmed. The court held that an insurer cannot cancel a current policy based on auditing problems from an earlier one and must afford the insured a reasonable opportunity to cure any alleged noncompliance before cancellation takes effect.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In State v. Wilson, the defendant was convicted of criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature and kidnapping after a jury trial. He appealed, claiming the trial court should have granted a mistrial because the victim testified about prior abuse by him, which the parties had agreed in limine to exclude as bad acts evidence. The Court of Appeals first determined the mistrial issue was preserved for review because Wilson's objection was overruled, making further motions or acceptance of a curative instruction unnecessary. On the merits, the court held that even if the testimony's admission was error, the limited appellate record showed no prejudice to Wilson, as there was no indication the evidence affected the outcome given the other proof in the case. The court therefore affirmed the convictions and denial of the mistrial.

criminal lawprocedure