February 12, 2013 South Carolina Court of Appeals published opinions

State v Anderson 

Anderson was convicted of first degree burglary. On appeal, he challenged the state’s expert’s qualification as an expert witness and the failure to provide the full batch of fingerprints analyzed by the expert. The panel, with one judge concurring in result only, affirmed. It held the trial court properly qualified the expert based on his experience analyzing fingerprints as a crime scene investigator as well as his training in the field. It also held that the additional fingerprints were not proven exculpatory and thus there was no basis to find a Brady violation.

Sims as guardian of Orlowski v Amisub of South Carolina, Inc. and Creagh 

Sims brought suit against Amisub and Creagh for medical malpractice after successfully suing another doctor for Orlowski’s injuries. The circuit court granted summary judgment on collateral estoppel grounds. The panel affirmed as modified. It held that the current suit was not barred by collateral estoppel as Amisub and Creagh alleged negligence was not litigated in the prior suit. However, holding the issue was properly preserved by being raised in the summary judgment motion, the panel held that this suit was barred by the statute of limitations as tolling of the limitation period in medical malpractice suits is only available to minors not those alleged to be incompetent such as Orlowski.

State v Palmer and Gorman 

Palmer and Gorman were convicted at a joint trail of homicide by child abuse, unlawful conduct towards a child and aiding and abetting. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part. The panel, 2-1, affirmed on the homicide and conduct convictions holding the state placed each defendant alone with the child during the period medical evidence established the fatal injuries occurred, eliminated all other possible assailants and identified stresses in each defendant’s life which could explain the violence towards the child. The dissent on these issues argued that the state did not establish that Palmer or Gorman actually inflicted the wounds and thus failed to prove its case against either defendant. The panel unanimously held there was no evidence of assistance by either defendant and thus reversed as to those convictions.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s