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.
4-3-2013 - Opinions
Appellant pled guilty to breach of trust with fraudulent intent, valued at more than $1,000 but less than $5,000, in violation of Section 16-13-230(B)(2) (2003) (amended 2010) of the South Carolina Code. She was sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act to a term not to exceed six years, suspended upon five years' probation and payment of restitution. Appellant appealed, arguing the circuit court erred in denying her motion to be sentenced under the Omnibus Crime Reduction and Sentencing Reform Act of 2010, S.C. Acts No. 273 (the Act), which became effective after Appellant committed the crime but before she was sentenced. The Court found the circuit court properly denied Appellant's motion because the Act unambiguously states its sentencing amendments do not apply to criminal prosecutions arising under the amended laws.4-10-2013 - Opinions
In this opinion, the Court disbars Wilton Darnell Newton from the practice of law in South Carolina.
In this opinion, the Court publicly reprimands Kana Rahman Johnson for misconduct.
The Court found the Court of Appeals erred in failing to reverse petitioner's commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator because the trial court erred in allowing a lay witness to offer expert opinion testimony.4-17-2013 - Opinions
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court relating to the funding of an investment approved by the South Carolina Retirement System Investment Commission.4-24-2013 - Opinions
In this attorney disciplinary matter, the Court held that Respondent's admitted failure to file state and federal income tax returns warranted definite suspension from the practice of law for 90 days.
In this case in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, enrollees in the State's health insurance plan challenged the Budget and Control Board's August 8, 2012 decision to raise enrollees' premiums. We find the Board's decision unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers.