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.

28136 - State v. Randy Wright

A jury found Respondent Randy Wright guilty of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. The court of appeals reversed Wright's conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the trial court erred in denying Wright's request that the jury be individually polled and (2) the trial court's denial of the request was reversible per se. State v. Wright, 432 S.C 365, 370, 373, 852 S.E.2d 468, 471-72 (Ct. App. 2020). We affirm the court of appeals' opinion.

28137 - State v. Darrell Oneil Boston

We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in State v. Boston, 433 S.C. 177, 857 S.E.2d 27 (Ct. App. 2021). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

28138 - State v. Craig Carl Busse

Busse appealed his conviction for second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor, claiming a statement the deputy solicitor made during closing argument improperly vouched for the victim's credibility. The court of appeals affirmed. We find the deputy solicitor's statement did not amount to vouching. We affirm.

28139 - In the Matter of Tiffany Jane' Brown

In this attorney disciplanary matter, the Court imposes a public reprimand.

28140 - In the Matter of Cooper C. Lynn

In this attorney disciplinary matter, the Court imposes the sanction of disbarment.

28141 - In the Matter of Randall DeWitt Williams

In the attorney disciplinary matter, the Court imposes a definite suspension of ninety days.

28142 - State v. Stewart Jerome Middleton

At Stewart Jerome Middleton's trial for criminal sexual conduct in the third degree, the State introduced a police detective's testimony that Middleton was evasive in response to her attempts to get Middleton to come in for a voluntary interview. The trial court admitted this testimony over Middleton's relevance objection. We hold the trial court erred in finding the testimony relevant because the State did not establish the required nexus between Middleton's conduct and a consciousness of his guilt. We reverse Middleton's conviction and remand for a new trial.