John H. Waller

In this case, Larry Smith sought post-conviction relief after his 2004 conviction for second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor, arguing that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to hearsay and bolstering testimony from a forensic interviewer who recounted the victim's statements and vouched for her credibility. The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the PCR court's denial of relief, finding counsel's performance deficient because he admitted having no strategy for the failure to object and that the testimony improperly exceeded the time-and-place limits for corroborative statements under Rule 801(d)(1), SCRE. The court further held that the error prejudiced Smith, as the trial evidence was conflicting and the improper testimony was emphasized in closing arguments, undermining confidence in the outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of the appellant for trafficking cocaine after a trial in absentia, where police used a confidential informant to conduct a controlled buy at the appellant's apartment and later recovered the marked buy money and other drugs there. The appellant challenged the admission of the cocaine at trial, arguing that the chain of custody was incomplete because the State did not call the informant to testify. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the chain of custody was sufficient. It distinguished the case from State v. Sweet because the informant's identity was known to the defense, allowing cross-examination on relevant issues, and the informant was under police observation except for a brief period inside the apartment. The court found that other evidence reasonably established the handling of the cocaine, so there was no abuse of discretion in admitting it.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an inmate at Ridgeland Correctional Institution who challenged South Carolina Department of Corrections Policy GA-01.03, which bars inmates from photocopying self-generated legal documents even if they can pay for the copies, claiming the policy unconstitutionally restricted his meaningful access to the courts. The Administrative Law Court affirmed the denial of the inmate's grievance, and the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed that ruling after certifying the appeal. The court held that under Bounds v. Smith and Lewis v. Casey, a prisoner alleging denial of court access must demonstrate actual injury from the policy rather than a speculative future harm such as potentially missing deadlines. Because the inmate provided no evidence of any actual injury, the policy did not violate his constitutional rights.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involved a dispute within the Spartanburg County Legislative Delegation over whether to elect its chairman and vice-chairman by a simple majority vote or by a weighted vote proportional to each member's constituents. After the 2008 elections, the delegation split into factions, leading petitioner Harold Mitchell to seek resolution from the South Carolina Supreme Court. The court held that a simple majority vote is sufficient for electing these officers. The reasoning was that these positions are ceremonial and do not involve performing governmental functions, distinguishing it from the Fourth Circuit's ruling in Vander Linden v. Hodges that required weighted voting for substantive delegation actions to comply with one-person-one-vote principles.

electionscivil rights

In State v. Edwards, three brothers convicted of murder and accessory after the fact challenged their convictions, arguing that the trial court wrongly granted the State's Batson motion during jury selection and quashed the first panel. The defendants had used peremptory strikes partly on Caucasian and African American jurors, citing concerns like a potential juror's employment as a newspaper editor and another's work at the DMV interacting with law enforcement; the trial court found these explanations racially motivated, but two of the disputed jurors later served on the second jury that convicted the defendants. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that the employment-based reasons were race-neutral and that the State failed to show they were pretextual under Batson standards. The court reasoned that the erroneous Batson ruling tainted the jury since the disputed jurors were seated, requiring a new trial.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In Turner v. State, petitioner Harold Turner sought post-conviction relief after his probation revocation, alleging that his probation counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of his right to a direct appeal. The PCR court denied relief, finding no non-frivolous grounds for appeal and no extraordinary circumstances. On certiorari, the South Carolina Supreme Court examined whether the PCR court erred, clarifying that although a probationer lacks a Sixth Amendment right to counsel, state rules provide a right to counsel in revocation proceedings, so ineffectiveness claims are analyzed under the Strickland standard by analogy to other PCR cases. The court distinguished parole revocation precedents and held that this approach provides a uniform standard without creating new constitutional rights.

criminal lawprocedure