Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Ashley Hepburn appealed her conviction for homicide by child abuse. Sixteen-month-old Audrina Hepburn became unresponsive and was admitted to the hospital one evening in 2009. No one (including appellant) disputed the child died from child abuse. Only two people could have killed the child: appellant or her then-boyfriend, co-defendant Brandon Lewis. The jury found Appellant guilty of homicide by child abuse and Lewis guilty of aiding and abetting homicide by child abuse. The trial court sentenced Appellant to 45 years' imprisonment and Lewis to ten years' imprisonment suspended upon the service of seven years. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. Appellant argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the trial court erred in denying her mid-trial motion for directed verdict. After its review, the Supreme Court found the trial court should have granted appellant's motion, and directed a verdict of acquittal. View "South Carolina v. Hepburn" on Justia Law

Petitioner Richard Jordan appealed the denial of his application for post-conviction relief. Petitioner was arrested and later indicted for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and trafficking in methamphetamine. At the suggestion of his girlfriend Cynthia Summers, petitioner retained attorney Harry DePew to represent him on the methamphetamine charges. DePew was then representing Summers on an unrelated charge. DePew did not inform the trial court at any time that he represented both petitioner and Summers. At trial, evidence was introduced pointing to Summers' involvement with the methamphetamine lab operation. The trial court invited Petitioner to present evidence as to Summers' third-party guilt. DePew, however, did not present any evidence to incriminate Summers, though Petitioner testified at the PCR hearing that he had several witnesses that were prepared to testify as to Summers' guilt. Petitioner was convicted on both charges and sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. Petitioner later sought PCR alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because DePew's dual representation of petitioner and Summers constituted an actual conflict of interest. During the PCR hearing, petitioner testified that he was not informed of the conflict of interest, did not waive the conflict of interest, and wanted to present a third-party guilt defense as to Summers. View "Jordan v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

Appellant James Curry, Jr. was convicted and sentenced for voluntary manslaughter and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act, and because Appellant was not prejudiced by the section 16-11-440(C) jury instruction given at his trial, Appellant's convictions and sentence were affirmed. View "South Carolina v. Curry" on Justia Law

Appellant William Mark Brockmeyer appealed his convictions for murder and possession of a weapon during a violent crime, raising constitutional challenges to both the trial court's refusal to enforce a subpoena concerning the identity of an internet commenter and the admission of certain chain-of-custody testimony and other photographic evidence at trial. The theory of appellant's defense was that the shooting was an accident. An issue arose over posted comments to a news article by a local television station. Appellant wanted evidence supporting his claim of accident and being emotionally upset after the shooting, and contended the online post suggested its author had direct knowledge of the incident and supported his claim of accident. Accordingly, appellant served the television station with a subpoena seeking the user's gender, year of birth, ZIP code, name and email address (all requirements for creating a user account on the station's website to publish comments online). The television station resisted the subpoena on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. Appellant argued his constitutional right to a fair trial required disclosure of the identity of the commenter. The Supreme Court concluded after its review of the trial court record, that the subpoena issue was not properly preserved for appeal, and even if it had been, the trial court's refusal to enforce the subpoena was not reversible error. Finding no other reversible errors, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court in all other respects. View "South Carolina v. Brockmeyer" on Justia Law

Hard Hat Workforce Solutions, LLC (Hard Hat) appealed a circuit court order granting summary judgment in favor of Great American Insurance Company (GAI). Hard Hat argued it was entitled to make a claim against a payment bond GAI issued on a construction project. The threshold issue in this case was whether Hard Hat's bond claim must comply with section 29-5-440's "notice of furnishing" provision. The Supreme Court found it did not: three e-mails Hard Hat sent to a subcontractor, Walker White, created an issue of fact as to whether Hard Hat satisfied section 29-5-440's notice provisions. View "Hard Hat Workforce v. Mechanical HVAC" on Justia Law

Appellant Steven Barnes was convicted on kidnapping and murder charges. The jury found two aggravating circumstances and recommended the death sentence. The judge sentenced appellant to death for the murder, but no sentence for kidnapping. On appeal, appellant contended that the trial court erred in allowing his attorney to call a defense psychiatrist to testify regarding appellant's right to represent himself, by denying his "Faretta" request, in limiting voir dire, by qualifying a particular juror, and by refusing to dismiss the indictments because of the State's alleged failure to comply with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. Finding that the trial court applied the incorrect competency standard in its denial of the Faretta request, the Supreme Court reversed on that ground. View "South Carolina v. Barnes" on Justia Law

Father appealed his conviction for sexually abusing his two young daughters. He challenged the trial court's order requiring that he be entered on the Central Registry of Child Abuse and Neglect, and that prohibited him from visiting his four children until successful completion of a treatment plan. Father argued the family court erred in its interpretation of S.C. Code Ann. 19-1-180 (Supp. 2012) and in permitting the playing of videotape forensic interviews of the non-testifying child victims. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the videotapes were inadmissible under 19-1-180(G) and reversed. View "SCDSS v. Pringle" on Justia Law

Petitioner Clinton Brantley was the pastor of St. Matthew Baptist Church. Respondents Ira Banks, James Bell, and Vernon Holmes served as trustees of the Church. At a congregational meeting, Brantley stated that without his knowledge, the Trustees had placed a mortgage upon the Church's property in order to purchase nearby apartment buildings. He further stated the Trustees failed to insure the apartment buildings and that funds were missing because of their mismanagement. He urged the congregation to remove the Trustees from their position, and the congregation subsequently did. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court centered on whether the pastor could use the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause to shield him from tort liability for allegedly defamatory statements he made about the church trustees at the congregational meeting. While the pastor acknowledged the non-religious nature of his statements, he contends the setting in which they were made and their relationship to church governance places the trustees' defamation claim outside the jurisdiction of civil courts under the First Amendment. The circuit court dismissed the claim, and the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court held the circuit court had jurisdiction to resolve this defamation claim using neutral principles of law and affirmed the court of appeals. View "Banks v. Brantley" on Justia Law

Appellants appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the respondents in this case. The case was dismissed after respondents moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), SCRCP. Because the Supreme Court found issues of fact raised by the complaint that needed to be resolved before the constitutionality of 2009 Act No. 99 could be determined, the case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. "The circuit court and respondents [relied] on a single sentence found in 'Bradley v. Cherokee School Dist. No. One,' [470 S.E.2d 570 (1996)]: A law that is special only in the sense that it imposes a lawful tax limited in application and incidence to persons or property within a certain school district does not contravene the provisions of Article III, section 34(IX)." In this case, the Supreme Court held that Appellant's complaint centered on an impact fee, not a tax, and one that is placed on only some persons and not others. Moreover, since 'Bradley' was decided, the Court clarified that all challenges to education-related special legislation were subject to the test set forth in 'Kizer v. Clark,'(600 S.E.2d 529 (2004)). The Supreme Court found that appellants' complaint alleged facts which, if resolved in their favor, would result in a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional. The order granting respondents' Rule 12(c) motion was therefore reversed. View "Home Builders Association v. School District No. 2 of Dorchester County" on Justia Law

In a matter of first impression, the Supreme Court was asked to determine if an unsuccessful party in an arbitration proceeding could prevent the confirmation of an award by paying the award prior to the confirmation proceeding. Diane Henderson filed an action against Summerville Ford-Mercury, Inc. alleging the dealer made misrepresentations to her when she purchased a used vehicle. The circuit court granted the dealer's motion to compel arbitration, and an arbitrator found for Henderson on her claims for violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act and the South Carolina Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dealers Act. Henderson moved to confirm the arbitration award, which was granted by the circuit court. The dealer appealed, arguing the circuit court erred: (1) in rejecting its assertion that payment of the award mooted the request for confirmation, leaving no "justiciable controversy"; and alternatively (2) in applying the provision for confirming awards contained in the South Carolina Uniform Arbitration Act ("UAA"), rather than the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the unsuccessful party could not prevent confirmation of the award by paying it before confirmation. View "Henderson v. Summerville Ford-Mercury" on Justia Law