State v. Davis — Uninvestigated juror communication requires new trial
The Court of Appeals reversed a murder conviction because the trial court failed to question a juror after credible evidence of discussions with an outsider.
Uncategorized
South Carolina
Uncategorized
ACLU v. Wilson — Public execution-team information falls outside secrecy law
The South Carolina Supreme Court held that the execution-secrecy statute does not cover public or nonconfidential identifying information and does not punish its later repetition.
Uncategorized
State v. Carroll — Cell-phone and tower evidence survives suppression challenge
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Carroll lacked a personal Fourth Amendment interest in the victim’s phone and therefore could not suppress evidence based on its search. The warrants concerning his own phone and the carrier records were supported by the investigation and, in any event, were executed in objectively reasonable reliance on judicial authorization. Sworn oral testimony could supplement a facially sparse affidavit, and the record supported application of the Leon good-faith doctrine.
Uncategorized
Heatley v. State — Supreme Court retires the Logan circumstantial-evidence charge
The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed denial of post-conviction relief and held that trial counsel need not request the Logan circumstantial-evidence instruction.
Uncategorized
State v. Lee — Trial Court Must Inquire Into Accommodations Before Excusing Hearing-Impaired Juror
The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Kendrick Lee’s ABHAN conviction and life-without-parole sentence, holding that the trial court erred by excusing the only Black prospective juror based on a hearing impairment without first conducting an individualized inquiry into whether reasonable accommodations could have enabled that juror to render efficient service, as required by the ADA and S.C. Code Ann. § 14-7-1020.
Uncategorized
State v. Redding — Conviction Reversed; Circumstantial Evidence Raised Only Suspicion of Guilt
The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed Brian Redding’s murder conviction, holding the circuit court erred in denying his directed verdict motion because the State’s wholly circumstantial case—comprising a difficult relationship, theoretical access to the murder weapon, a clothing change, and trace gunshot-residue on shorts—raised only a suspicion of guilt rather than substantial circumstantial evidence, particularly in light of Redding’s corroborated alibi and innocent explanations for each item of State’s evidence.
Uncategorized
State v. Eberhart — GPS Data from Private Bond Company Requires Warrant; Admission Harmless
The South Carolina Court of Appeals held that a criminal defendant wearing a private bond company’s GPS ankle monitor retains a reasonable expectation of privacy in that location data under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 10 of the South Carolina Constitution, requiring a warrant; though the trial court erred in admitting the warrantlessly obtained GPS data, the error was harmless given the victim’s in-court identification, the stolen moped evidence, and the victim’s debit card found on the defendant at arrest.
Uncategorized
State v. Manigo — SC Court of Appeals Dismisses Pretrial Detainee’s Appeal of Order Releasing Jail Phone Calls as Non-Appealable Interlocutory Order
The South Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed a pretrial detainee’s appeal of a circuit court order releasing his jail telephone calls to the media, holding the order was non-appealable as interlocutory, and reaffirming that South Carolina requires evidence of actual juror bias rather than presumed prejudice from pretrial publicity.
Uncategorized
State v. Barry W. Jones — Armed Return After “Kill” Text Defeats Stand Your Ground Immunity; Suicide Attempt Evidence Properly Admitted
The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a murder conviction, holding that the defendant’s decision to return to the confrontation site while armed — minutes after texting “I’m gonna kill that BBoy” — defeated Stand Your Ground immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act; suicide attempt evidence was properly admitted under the Cartwright framework; and the self-defense jury charge adequately covered the law.