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.

25886 - State v. Holmes

This death penalty case involves the issue of whether the trial court erred by refusing to admit evidence of third-party guilt.

25887 - Slezak v. S.C. Department of Corrections

The Court clarifies the jurisdiction of the ALJD in inmate grievance appeals, and holds that while five of appellant's grievances lack merit, a claim of safety and health hazards resulting from prison overcrowding warrants further action.

This is an order placing an attorney on interim suspension and appointing an attorney to protect his clients' interests.

25888 - In the Matter of Paul W. Nevill

This is an attorney disciplinary matter in which the Court issued a public reprimand.

25889 - In the Matter of Michael V. Hart

This is an attorney disciplinary matter in which the Court issued a public reprimand.

25890 - In the Matter of Verdell Barr

This is an attorney disciplinary matter in which the Court issued a public reprimand.

25891 - In the Matter of Robert Lee Newton, Jr.

This is an attorney disciplinary matter in which the Court issued a definite suspension.

25892 - State v. Arnold

In this case, the Court affirms the Court of Appeals' decision reversing the denial of the defendant's directed verdict motion.

25893 - State v. Cabrera-Pena

The Court reversed the court of appeals' ruling that an adverse party is not permitted to bring out, during cross-examination, remaining portions of an unrecorded conversation or oral statement made by the adverse party for the purpose of clarifying or explaining an entire conversation. But the Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision in result, finding that there was overwhelming direct evidence that the petitioner was guilty of murder.

25894 - In the Matter of Bamberg County Magistrate Danny J. Singleton

This is a judicial disciplinary opinion in which the Court removed the magistrate from office.

25895 - In the Matter of Frank Bryant Brown

This is an attorney disciplinary matter where the Court imposed a definite suspension and disbarred the attorney.

This order amends Rule 411(c)(1), SCACR, to raise the per claim maximum payout from $20,000 to $40,000 and the per lawyer maximum payout from $100,000 to $200,000.

25896 - State v. White

In this case, the Court concludes the defendant was entitled to a charge of ABHAN and was not entitled to a charge of simple assault and battery. The Court also concluded the trial court properly admitted the testimony of an expert on post-traumatic stress disorder and treatment of sexual abuse.

25897 - Municipal Association of SC v. AT&T

The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina certified the following question: “Does South Carolina law allow municipalities to impose by ordinance a 5% per month penalty for the late payment of business license taxes?”

25898 - In the Matter of Fortson

In this disciplinary opinion, the Court definitely suspended an attorney for misconduct.

25899 - Sloan v. Greenville County

The Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and held, as had the circuit court, that these cases were moot.

25900 - Allendale Sheriff v. Chess Challenge II

The Court affirmed the magistrate’s decision finding that the two Chess Challenge II machines seized and examined were lawful. But the Court reversed the portion of the ruling that deemed “all those [machines] operating in an identical manner” lawful, because the magistrate lacked the authority to so rule.

25901 - Fender v. Heirs at Law of Smashum

The Court dismissed certiorari in this case which involves, among other things, whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding Petitioner did not establish title by adverse possession.

25902 - State v. Cherry

The primary issue in this case is whether or not this Court will retain the traditional circumstantial evidence charge pursuant to State v. Fuller. There is also an issue of whether the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict.