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.
5-8-2019 - Opinions
The Court affirms the court of appeals as modified, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in evaluating the Colf factors as it did and in concluding Robinson's prior convictions were admissible under Rule 609(a)(1) of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence.
This case concerns when a claim for deficient notice of disposition of collateral under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code accrues for statute of limitation purposes. We hold the limitations period begins only upon disposition.
We hold the Dorchester County referendum question granting authority to issue up to $30 million in bonds for library facilities and up to $13 million for recreational facilities contained two separate bond proposals and required voters to support both or neither, and as a result, it was unlawful.5-15-2019 - Opinions
Daniel Hamrick appeals his conviction for felony driving under the influence resulting in great bodily injury. We find the trial court erred in admitting the opinion testimony of an officer on the subject of accident reconstruction. The officer's testimony was not admissible as lay opinion under Rule 701, SCRE, and the court failed to make the necessary findings the officer was qualified to give such an opinion under Rule 702, SCRE. We reverse and remand to the court of general sessions for a new trial.
We hold the trial court erred by finding Heyward's counsel had opened the door to testimony that he had previously committed acts of domestic violence. Because the error was preserved and prejudicial, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Respondent, a licensed attorney in New Jersey and South Carolina, was suspended by the Supreme Court of New Jersey for one year for violating the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct. Following Respondent's failure to respond to a certified letter notifying him he had thirty days to inform the Supreme Court of South Carolina of any claim that the imposition of identical discipline in this state was not warranted and the reason for any such claim, the Court reciprocally suspended Respondent from the practice of law for one year.
The Court accepted the Agreement for Discipline by Consent entered into between Respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) in which Respondent admitted his conduct violated numerous provisions to the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 11 of the Resolution of Fee Disputes Board, Rule 416, SCACR. The Court suspended Respondent from the practice of law for one year, and ordered he pay (1) the costs incurred by ODC during its investigation and prosecution and (2) restitution to a former client.5-22-2019 - Opinions
We granted Jo Pradubsri's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals affirming his conviction. State v. Pradubsri, 420 S.C. 629, 803 S.E.2d 724 (Ct. App. 2017). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.