South Carolina Supreme Court revisits “good character alone” jury instruction

On August 7, 2019, in Pantovich v. State, the South Carolina Supreme Court revisited our state’s “good character alone” instruction which required trial judges to instruct jurors: Good character evidence alone may create a reasonable doubt as to the commission of the crime charged. Thus, under some circumstances, a person might be entitled to a verdict […]

Read More

South Carolina Supreme Court grants post-conviction relief in murder case

On August 7, 2019, the South Carolina Supreme Court vacated a murder conviction, granted post-conviction relief (“PCR”), and ordered a new trial in State v. Felder. Felder’s trial counsel did not object when the prosecution introduced a summary of Felder’s statement that mentioned “he was currently on bond for a lynching charge.” “After weighing trial […]

Read More

South Carolina Supreme Court rules trial judges should never instruct jurors they can infer malice from the use of a deadly weapon

The landmark case of State v. Belcher held trial judges should not instruct jurors they can infer malice from the use of a deadly weapon when there is evidence that would negate or mitigate the charge of murder. Belcher, however, left open the possibility of trial judges instructing jurors they can infer malice from the […]

Read More

Upstate Business Journal features Charles Grose

On June 20, 2019, the Upstate Business Journal featured Charles Grose in an article entitled, “Criminal defense attorney works to ensure fair trials,” by Ariel Gilreath. The article quoted Mr. Grose, “All of us are a lot more than the worst mistake that we’ve ever made in our lives. Sometimes it’s about finding a way […]

Read More

Court of Appeals Affirms Grant of New Trial After Prosecutor Failed to Disclose Deal with Testifying Co-Defendant

On May 8, 2018, in State v. Dean, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of a new trial because the prosecution did not disclose its deal with a testifying co-defendant. The failure to disclose resulted in a denial of due process and the right to confront the witness. Click this link to […]

Read More

Continued Confusion About Attempted Murder

In State v. Williams, decided on June 12, 2019, the South Carolina Supreme Court recognized continued confusion surrounding the prosecutions burden of proof in attempted murder cases. Although attempted murder is a specific intent crime, the trial judge, without objection, instructed the jurors that a specific intent is not required to prove attempted murder. As […]

Read More

Court of Appeals Orders Credit for Time Served

On February 13, 2019, in State v. Brown, the South Carolina Court of Appeals held individuals are entitled to credit for time served during pre-trial commitments to a secure mental health facility to restore competency to stand trial. Click this link to read State v. Brown.

Read More

Prosecution must make showing before evidence of attempted suicide can be used as evidence of guilt

On September 26, 2018, in State v. Cartwright, the South Carolina Suprme Court held evidence of a suicide attempt can be admitted as evidence of guilty, “provided that the State establishes a clear and unmistakable nexus linking the suicide attempt to a guilty conscience derivative of the offense for which the defendant is on trial.” […]

Read More

Court of Appeals Reinstates Jury Verdict in Favor of Wrongfully Terminated College Professor

On June 27, 2018, in Crenshaw v. Erskine College, the South Carolina Court of Appeals reinstated a $600,000.00 verdict awarded by Abbeville County jurors to a tenured college professor wrongfully terminated by Erskine College.  Charles Grose became involved in the case after the trial judge granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and entered a judgment in […]

Read More

Right to confront and cross-examine a witness includes right to question witness about U-visa

On June 6, 2018, in State v. Perez, the South Carolina Court Supreme Court held Mr. Perez was prejudiced by the trial court not allowing him to cross-examine a witness about seeking a U-visa. The Court explained, “A U-visa allows victims of certain crimes, who have suffered mental or physical abuse and are helpful to […]

Read More