Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A jury found Jeffrey Chapman met the statutory definition of a sexually violent predator (SVP) as set forth in South Carolina's Sexually Violent Predator Act (the Act), and the trial court subsequently signed an order to civilly commit him. In this direct appeal, Chapman presented a novel issue of law related to the right to counsel in SVP proceedings. The Supreme Court held that persons committed as SVPs have a right to the effective assistance of counsel, and they may effectuate that right by seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, although the Court affirmed Chapman's commitment on issue preservation grounds, he may reassert his ineffective assistance of counsel claims in a future habeas proceeding. View "In the Matter of Jeffrey Allen Chapman" on Justia Law

Bobby Stone shot and killed Charlie Kubala of the Sumter County Sheriff's Office. Stone filed an application for post-conviction relief (PCR) alleging he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The PCR court denied relief. Stone filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which was granted as to three sets of issues: (1) whether Stone's trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in dealing with victim impact evidence; (2) whether Stone's trial counsel was ineffective in investigating and presenting evidence of brain damage; and (3) whether Stone's trial counsel was ineffective in investigating and presenting evidence of the accident theory of the case. Finding trial and appellate counsel's performance was reasonable in almost every respect, the Supreme Court affirmed: counsel's performance did not meet an objective standard of reasonableness, and thus was deficient under the first prong of "Strickland." However, as to each of these failures, Stone did not prove a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different as required by the second prong. View "Stone v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

Petitioner-defendant Charles Cain appealed after he was convicted for trafficking methamphetamine. He argued the State produced insufficient evidence as to the quantity of drugs required for trafficking, and thus the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a directed verdict. The Court of Appeals found the core of Cain’s argument was not preserved for appellate review and affirmed. Finding however, that the argument was indeed preserved, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "South Carolina v. Cain" on Justia Law

Petitioner Michael Gonzales was convicted for trafficking 400 grams or more of methamphetamine, for which he was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. Petitioner applied for post-conviction relief (PCR), arguing his trial counsel had a conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel’s performance. The PCR judge denied relief, and in a split decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the PCR judge’s order. The South Carolina Supreme Court found the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the PCR judge’s order, so it reversed denial of petitioner’s application for PCR. View "Gonzales v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

Ruben Ramirez was sixteen years old when he was indicted for assault and battery with intent to kill, kidnapping, first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor, first-degree burglary, and lewd act upon a child. The issue his case presented for the Supreme Court’s review was whether a severely mentally retarded individual should be afforded post-conviction relief (PCR) where his plea counsel failed to request an independent competency evaluation prior to his guilty plea. The PCR court denied relief, finding plea counsel was not deficient nor was Ramirez prejudiced by counsel's representation. Although the court of appeals disagreed that plea counsel was not deficient, the court affirmed based on its application of the "any evidence" standard to the PCR court's prejudice finding. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding the court of appeals' finding of deficiency but reversing its finding as to lack of prejudice to Ramirez. View "Ramirez v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

Appellant Michael Beaty, Jr. was convicted of murdering his girlfriend, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. After the jury was sworn the trial judge gave preliminary remarks. Appellant objected to the use of the terms "search[ing] for the truth," "true facts," and "just verdict." Appellant complained these terms were especially concerning when linked with the Solicitor's "misstatement" of circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt in his opening statement, and because the Solicitor had informed the jury that it would have to pick between two competing theories. Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed appellant's conviction, but took the opportunity of this case to discuss two issues appellant raised in his appeal. "We instruct trial judges to omit any language, whether in remarks to the jury or in an instruction, which might have the effect of lessening the State's burden of proof in a criminal case. Further, we hold that in criminal cases tried after this opinion becomes final, if requested by the party with the right to second argument, the party with the right to open and close will be required to open in full on the law and the facts, and be limited in reply to addressing the other party's argument and not permitted to raise new matters." View "South Carolina v. Beaty" on Justia Law

Walter Bash was indicted for trafficking in cocaine and cocaine base. The circuit court found officers conducted an illegal search, and suppressed the drugs. The State appealed. The court of appeals reversed the circuit court's suppression order and remanded for trial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari review and reversed, finding that the officers entered the curtilage of this home for the purpose of conducting a search for drugs. Because the officers did not have a warrant for the search and no exception to the warrant requirement was applicable, the officers violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court reinstated the circuit court's judgment in this case. View "South Carolina v. Bash" on Justia Law

Petitioner Steven Berry was convicted of criminal sexual conduct with a minor, second degree. At trial, the State called Kim Roseborough who was qualified as an expert in the field of "child sexual abuse assessment and treatment." The relevant section of Roseborough's testimony consisted of three distinct parts: (1) testimony regarding the victim's demeanor witnessed by Roseborough during therapy; (2) testimony explaining and discussing delayed disclosure as part of the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome; and (3) testimony addressing trauma associated with sexual abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Trial counsel objected to Roseborough's testimony with respect to PTSD, and approached the bench for an off-record conference. After the conference, neither the grounds for the objection nor the trial judge's ruling were placed on the record, and Roseborough continued to testify about trauma and PTSD. After the State concluded its case-in-chief, trial counsel placed the objection discussed at sidebar, on the record. The trial judge reiterated his sidebar determination that one did not need to be a medical doctor to diagnosis PTSD. The Court of Appeals found the issue of whether Roseborough's testimony regarding trauma symptoms and PTSD was preserved for appeal. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court's conclusion with respect to the PTSD testimony. The Court found that any other issues raised with Roseborough's testimony were sustained but not preserved for review because counsel did not take further action to have the testimony stricken from the record, or curative instructions given, or a mistrial granted. View "South Carolina v. Berry" on Justia Law

Louis Winkler, Jr. was convicted of murder for the shooting death of his estranged wife. He received the death sentence. He applied for post-conviction relief (PCR), arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase of trial, for not objecting when the trial court did not answer the jury's questions about the consequences of failure to reach a unanimous verdict. The PCR court granted relief, but the State appealed. After review, the Supreme Court reversed on Winkler's ineffective assistance claim. The Court also reversed the PCR court's denial of Winkler's pretrial motions in the PCR action in which he requested additional time to obtain and analyze evidence related to his alleged brain damage. Because the denial of additional time deprived Winkler of the opportunity to adequately develop his PCR claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate brain damage, the Court vacated the PCR court's ruling denying that claim. The Supreme Court remanded this case back to the PCR court for further proceedings. View "Winkler v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

Respondent Russell Earley was convicted of criminal solicitation of a minor and sentenced to eight years in prison. Respondent's criminal charge arose from an encounter with a fourteen-year-old male (Victim) outside a public restroom at Walmart in Sumter in November 2008. On the evening of the incident, the Victim visited Walmart with his grandmother, who had promised to buy him some headphones. The Victim and his grandmother went in separate directions when they entered the store—the Victim headed for the electronics department while his grandmother went to pick up a few grocery items. After separating from his grandmother, the Victim stopped to use the restroom before shopping for headphones; as he entered the restroom, he noticed Respondent following him. The Victim stated he felt uncomfortable because Respondent stood in the restroom watching the Victim use the urinal. The Victim testified Respondent thereafter followed him out of the restroom, pointed to the Victim's genitals, and offered the Victim oral sex, which the Victim declined in no uncertain terms. The Victim immediately reported the incident to Walmart security, and multiple witnesses testified the Victim was visibly upset after the incident. There were no witnesses to the incident itself, and nothing was captured on Walmart surveillance video. The theory of Respondent's defense was that the Victim fabricated the whole story and the motivation for doing so was that Respondent had caught the Victim trying to shoplift CDs. The issue in this PCR matter involved a line of questioning during the State's cross-examination of Respondent. Specifically, the State had evidence that Respondent posted the message "See ya" on the Victim's Facebook wall the week before trial, despite having been ordered after his arrest not to have any contact with the Victim. The State's theory was that by posting such a message, Respondent was attempting to intimidate or threaten the Victim on the eve of trial. Defense counsel did not object or otherwise alert the trial court that the State had failed to disclose the "See ya" Facebook posting prior to trial. After withdrawing his direct appeal, Respondent filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) application, generally alleging that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After review of the trial court record, the PCR court granted Respondent relief. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed and reinstated Respondent's conviction and sentence. "Because the trial court would not have been compelled to declare a mistrial, we find the PCR court committed an error of law in finding the outcome of Respondent's trial would have been different had trial counsel moved for a mistrial based on the State's failure to disclose the Facebook posting. Absent a showing of prejudice as required by Strickland, it was error to grant relief." View "Earley v. South Carolina" on Justia Law