Supreme Court of South Carolina

 

Event Date and Time:  Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:30 AM

Alert: As of March 1, there have been reports of the above player failing to load in Google Chrome. If you experience this, please try using either Internet Explorer or the Ancillary video stream linked below. We apologize for any inconvenience and are working towards a resolution that will restore functionality to Google Chrome.

Click here to view the ancillary stream.

Click here to view the video in your local VLC player.

To view archived court cases, visit the Supreme Court Video Portal.

The summary below each case is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what issues are included in a case which will be argued. The summary is not a limit on what issues a party to a case may present at oral argument.

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

09:30 a.m.

2017-000693    County of Florence and Florence County Council, Respondents, v. West Florence Fire District, purported to have been created by S.C. Act No. 183 of 2014, the West Florence Fire District Commission, purported to have been created by S. C. Act. No. 183 of 2014, David Brown, Dustin Fails, Linda Lang Gipco, Richard Hewitt and C. Allen Matthews, each in his or her purported official capacity as a member of the West Florence Fire District Commission and the State of South Carolina, Defendants, of whom West Florence Fire District, purported to have been created by S.C. Act No. 183 of 2014, the West Florence Fire District Commission, purported to have been created by S. C. Act. No. 183 of 2014, David Brown, Dustin Fails, Linda Lang Gipco, Richard Hewitt and C. Allen Matthews, each in his or her purported official capacity as a member of the West Florence Fire District Commission are Appellants.

Blake A. Hewitt, of Bluestein, Thompson Sullivan, LLC, of Columbia and Wallace Jordan, Jr., of Florence, for Appellants. Steve A. Matthews, of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., of Columbia and D. Malloy McEachin, Jr., of McEachin & McEachin, P.A., of Florence, for Respondents. Attorney General Alan M. Wilson and Deputy Solicitor General J. Emory Smith, Jr., for Defendant, State of South Carolina. 

The County of Florence challenged the constitutionality of 2014 Act No. 183 and 2015 Act No. 89, which established a special purpose fire district for portions of Florence and Darlington Counties. The circuit court ruled in favor of the County, holding both acts violate Wagener v. Smith, 221 S.C. 438, 71 S.E.2d 1 (1952), and are void under the South Carolina Constitution Article III, § 34, and Article VIII, § 7. Appellants contend the circuit court erred in holding Wagner and the constitutional provisions apply.

10:00 a.m.

2016-001430    Jerome Curtis Buckson, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Tricia A. Blanchette, of the Law Office of Tricia A. Blanchette, LLC, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Valerie Garcia Giovanoli, of Columbia, for Respondent. 

Jerome Buckson was tried by a jury for murder and burglary. Buckson was found guilty of burglary but innocent of murder. The PCR court granted Buckson relief for ineffective assistance of counsel. The court of appeals reversed. Buckson filed a petition for a writ of certiorari for review of the court of appeals' decision, which we granted.

10:30 a.m. 

2016-000654    The State, Respondent, v. James Clyde Dill, Jr., Petitioner.

Appellate Defender Taylor D. Gilliam, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia; and Solicitor David Matthew Stumbo, of Greenwood, for Respondent. 

James Clyde Dill Jr. was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine. Dill appealed his conviction, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in State v. Dill, Op. No. 2016-UP-010 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Jan. 13, 2016). Dill filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the Court granted. Dill argues: (1) there was no probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, (2) the trial court should have required the State to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, and (3) he was entitled to a directed verdict.