The following are opinions from the South Carolina Supreme Court:
State v. Pearson, Pearson appealed his conviction on first degree burglary, armed robbery, kidnapping, grand larceny and possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime. The appellate court overturned his conviction holding that circumstantial evidence presented by the State was insufficient to submit the case to the jury. The State petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review the appellate court’s decision.
This Court reversed the appellate court’s decisions finding that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, could induce a reasonable juror to find Pearson guilty. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Pearson’s convictions and sentencing.
In State v. Marin, Marin was convicted of murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. Marin appealed arguing that the court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that a person acting in self-defense has the right to continue shooting until the threat has ended. The appellate court rejected Marin’s argument and affirmed his conviction on appeal. This court issued a writ of certiorari to review the appellate court’s decision.
This Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, finding that the trial court did not err in refusing to charge particular language in its self-defense instruction.
Rutland v. State was a post -conviction relief. The Court reversed the PCR judge’s order denying petitioner relief.
In Roddey v. Wal-Mart Stores, the Court reversed the appellate court’s decision affirming the trial court’s grant of Wal-Mart’s motion for directed verdict on Petitioner Roddey’s negligence claim and the Court remanded for a new trial.
In the Matter of Charles E. Houston, the Court suspended a lawyer for violation of Rules 1.1, 1.3, and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In the Matter of Howard B. Hammer, the Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year after respondent pled guilty to leaving the scene with property damage.
Kubic v, MERSCORP was a consolidation of five separate lawsuits instituted by county administrators and registers of deeds in Allendale, Beaufort, Colleton, Hampton, and Jasper Counties alleging MERSCORP Holdings, Inc, Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. (MERS), and numerous banking institutions have engaged in a practice of fraudulent recordings that have disrupted the integrity of the public index.
This Court granted the petitioners writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 245, SCACR. The Court reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the respondents’ suits.