State v. Adam Rowell
Syllabus
After a jury convicted Adam Rowell of two felony driving under the influence charges, he discovered one of the jurors, Juror 164, had failed to disclose during voir dire that he had recently been arrested. Armed with this information, Rowell included it among other grounds in his motion for a new trial. Juror 164 was not present at the hearing on the new trial motion. After the hearing, Rowell requested another hearing so Juror 164 could be examined. Although the State consented to the request, the circuit court did not hold a second hearing and instead issued a written order denying Rowell a new trial. Rowell appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, holding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing with Juror 164. State v. Rowell, 436 S.C. 54, 870 S.E.2d 175 (Ct. App. 2022). We granted certiorari and now reverse.
Cites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. GreenwoodSupreme Court· 1984-01-18· cited 1,407×
- State v. ForresterSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2001-02-12· cited 111×
- State v. WoodsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2001-07-16· cited 44×
- State v. GulledgeSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1982-02-16· cited 32×
- State v. StoneSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2002-07-15· cited 28×
- Thompson Ex Rel. Estate of Thompson v. O'RourkeSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1986-01-06· cited 26×
- State v. CoaxumSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2014-10-08· cited 16×
- McCoy v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2013-02-06· cited 13×
- Lynch v. Carolina Self Storage Centers, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2014-03-26· cited 6×
- State v. PottsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2001-10-15· cited 5×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.