Note: Beginning in June 2012, opinions will be posted as Adobe PDFs. You can download a free copy of Adobe Reader here.
The summary following each opinion is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what a particular opinion decides. The summary is not necessarily a full description of the issues discussed in an opinion.
9-12-2008 - Opinions
This appeal involves a dispute between a landlord and tenant over the division of a compensation award from a partial taking of leased property by condemnation. Walgreen Company (Tenant) appeals the master-in-equity’s decision to give the entire $100,000 award to M & T Enterprises of Mt. Pleasant, LLC (Landlord). Since we may affirm for any reason in the record, we affirm as modified.
9-24-2008 - Opinions
Whitner appeals his convictions for drug possession and trafficking, arguing the trial court erred in failing to suppress a statement he made before he was informed of his Miranda rights. Whitner further argues the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by limiting his cross-examination of a witness. We affirm, finding the trial court did not commit reversible error because the both the statement and the witness's testimony were cumulative. Thus, any error was harmless.
In this civil action initiated pursuant to the South Carolina Tort Claims Act for wrongful death and survival statute claims, the personal representative contends the circuit judge erred in issuing an order for a new trial pursuant to the Thirteenth Juror doctrine. Additionally, the personal representative avers the circuit judge violated several rules, i.e., Rules 59(d), 6(b), and 5(a), SCRCP.
In this homicide by child abuse case, the appellant posits the following issues in regard to rulings made by the circuit judge: (1) in admitting inflammatory photographs of the child’s internal organs and other injuries; (2) in admitting evidence of prior instances of alleged abuse; and (3) in allowing alleged testimony of Martucci’s character.
9-25-2008 - Opinions
Charles Bickerstaff and Barbara Magera (collectively Appellants) appeal the circuit court’s award of prejudgment interest to Roger Prevost and Prevost Construction Company (Prevost). We affirm.