Mar 12, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
According to the Lancaster County, South Carolina Sheriff’s Department, a man who has been arrested before for burglary is being charged again. Deputies arrested the man in connection with two burglaries that occurred earlier in the evening.
Deputies in the area responded to a burglar alarm at the Speedee Mart on Pageland Highway. The video in the store demonstrated a man; allegedly matching the description of the man being charged, smash the door, stealing cigarettes, rolled coins, and beer. Thereafter deputies were called to Grown Folks bar on Kershaw Camden Highway for a burglary in progress call by an employee.
Thereafter, deputies pulled into the parking lot where they noticed a van pulling away from the scene. When the deputies pursued the vehicle, the man failed to stop for several miles leading police on a high speed chase resulting in a collision with a railroad crossing pole. The alleged burglar then attempted to flee the scene on foot, albeit unsuccessfully. When the deputies searched the van, they found stolen property from each location.
If you or a loved one has been charged with a crime against property, call the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP. We have experienced criminal attorneys who are here to assist you. Call our Baxter Village office in Fort Mill South Carolina at 803-548-4444, or 877-374-5999.
Mar 12, 2013 | DUI & DWI, Felony DUI, Uncategorized
A South Carolina state legislator has stated that he faces a drunken driving charge as a result of a stop that took place on Interstate 77 last year. He is reported to have been stopped after the South Carolina-Georgia Football game on October 6, 2012.
The legislator did not submit to the breathalyzer test, and will face an automatic license suspension. He has stated that he has been able to obtain a provisional license that allowed him to drive to work until the license is fully restored.
A DUI can impact anyone from every single walk of life. South Carolina football is huge, and it is easy for someone to consume one too many alcoholic beverages while attending a game and decide to get behind the wheel of a car. This is also something that is difficult to judge; so, if you have consumed more than one or two drinks before you are supposed to drive, you may be in danger of a DUI charge. Therefore, we recommend you consume nothing before driving. However, if you do we can try to help you. Call the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP for a consultation on your DUI charge. You can reach us at 803-548-4444, or toll-free at 877-374-5999.
Mar 12, 2013 | DUI & DWI, Felony DUI, Uncategorized
The state of South Carolina’s sixteen county prosecutors are asking the state for an additional $1.6 million to pay for prosecutors to handle the state’s 28,000 DUI cases per year. Governor Nikki Haley has even included the money in her proposed budget submitted early last month.
However, State Representative Mike Pitts, who is chairman of the committee that oversees the law enforcement budgets of South Carolina has stated that he does not “know that we will have the money to honor it this particular year.”
The problem the state is confronted with now is that State Troopers may have to argue these cases. This is a problem because the troopers rely on prosecutors to argue motions and other documents that usually require legal training.
Two years ago, almost 50 percent of all driving deaths in South Carolina involved an alcohol impaired driver. That number has fallen by about 10 percent this year, but it is still one of the highest in the United States. This is related to the high rate of DUI prosecution in the state. This high rate of prosecution inevitably demands from the state budget. Because of such a high number of DUI’s, and the lack of budgetary funds, an inadequate number of attorneys will be prosecuting such cases. It will now rest on the state police officers.
The fact that many state troopers may have to argue motions that a lawyer would typically be arguing demands a certain level of efficiency within state government. With untrained professionals arguing something that trained professionals should argue, it leaves open channels for abuse of discretion. It is important that one who has been charged with a DUI has competent legal counsel.
If you or a loved one has been charged with a DUI in the state of South Carolina, call the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP. We are here to make sure an offender’s rights are taken into full account when a person is being prosecuted. You can reach our Baxter Village office in Fort Mill, South Carolina at 803-548-4444, or toll free at 877-374-5999.
Mar 12, 2013 | Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation
FACTS:
Palmetto Hardwood, Inc. is a South Carolina corporation that employed the Petitioner. Through his employment with Palmetto Hardwood, Inc, the Petitioner had suffered three work related injuries: the first two incidents involved an injury to the man’s back, and the third involved a shard of metal flying from a gang saw and striking the man in the head. The Workers’ Compensation Commission found that the man had suffered an injury that was compensable, and found him to be totally and permanently disabled.
The Commission found that the man was to receive five hundred weeks of compensation as a result of his total disability, and metal expenses related to the three injuries. The case went up for appeal, and they asked the Commission to (1) explain whether the physical brain injury it found bordered on the frivolous was intended to be the same as or different from physical brain damage as used in S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-10(C) and (2). They argued that it was contradictory for the court to find the man suffered a “compensable injury to the head” with a finding of “no physical brain injury.” Further, on remand, the Commission clarified that the claimant has failed to carry his burden of proof to establish physical brain damage as contemplated by S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-10. However, on appeal the circuit court affirmed the Commission’s order. Petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals.
DISCUSSION AND HOLDING:
The interpretation of a statute is a question of law. So, if the construction of a statute by the agency that whose duty it is to carry out it’s administration, that agency will be afforded the most respectful consideration. However, if the agency’s reading of the statute conflicts with the plain language thereof, it must be rejected. CFRE, LLC v. Greenville County Assessor, 395 S.C. 67, 74.
The idea behind the rule of statutory construction is to “ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature.” Gilstrap v. South Carolina Budget and Control Bd., 310 S.C. 210, 213. Further, “a statute as a whole must receive practical, reasonable, and fair interpretation consonant with the purpose, design, and policy of lawmakers. When interpreting a statute, the language must be read in a sense that harmonizes with its subject matter and accords with its general purpose.” Id.
S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-10(C) reads as follows:
“Notwithstanding the five-hundred-week limitation prescribed in this section or elsewhere in this title, any person determined to be totally and permanently disabled who as a result of a compensable injury is a paraplegic, a quadriplegic, or who has suffered physical brain damage is not subject to the five-hundred-week limitation and shall receive the benefits for life.”
The term physical brain damage is the term at issue here. The term suggests that the General Assembly intended a more restrictive meaning than the most literal interpretation as proposed by the Petitioner here. The Statute awards lifetime benefits for someone who is “totally disabled;” they must be permanent physical impairments. So, the General Assembly intends to give the statute consistent meaning. S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-400(d) (Supp. 2011) used the term “brain damage” in a list of “permanent physical impairments.” This code is a bit more clearly defined than in S.C. Code Ann. 42-9-110 (d). Therefore, the court found that the General Assembly intended “physical brain damage” to have meaning consistent with 42-9-400(d); and, this interpretation is consistent with that of the Commission and thus affords proper deference to the agency.
Section 42-9-10(c) also requires that the injury be “physical,” which means “of or pertaining to the body, as distinguished from the mind or spirit; bodily” and “of or pertaining to material things.” American Heritage Dictionary 935 (2nd College Ed. 1991). There is nothing in the statute that suggests that this word should be interpreted otherwise, so in this case there is no dispute that Petitioner suffered at lease a mild concussion, by definition a physical injury to the brain.
Petitioner also argues that the General Assembly’s use of the verb phrase “has suffered” indicates that the injury need not result in permanent damage, since this form of the verb requires no more than that the action. The court, however, disagreed with this interpretation. They suppose that the term must signify that the action occurred in the past but has continuing effects in the present.
Therefore, the court concluded that the term “physical brain damage” as used in § 42-9-10(C) is physical brain damage that is both permanent and severe. And, the statute does not require total and permanent disability, but does require that the claimant suffer physical brain damage as a result of the compensable injury. So, it must be more than a mere concussion, which by definition does not have lasting effects. If it does have lasting effects, it may be considered compensable. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.
If you or someone you know has suffered a work related injury and may be permanently disabled as a result, call the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP for a consultation. If you have questions feel free to call our Baxter Village office in Fort Mill, South Carolina at 803-548-4444, or toll free at 877-374-5999.
Mar 11, 2013 | DUI & DWI, Felony DUI, Uncategorized
DUI convictions can potentially be a very costly experience to a person being charged with such a crime. The fine for a DUI charge can range from $400 to $6300. However, in addition to the initial fine, other penalties can be tacked onto the charge. These range from a license reinstatement fee to required counseling for substance abuse. And, additionally, as if the salt has not sufficiently lodged itself into the wound, an insurance company will be required to provide the DMV with an SR-22 insurance certificate for three years, which will almost assuredly double or triple one’s insurance premiums.
In the state of South Carolina, when someone faces his or her first conviction for DUI, there is a variety of minimums with regard to alcohol levels. These rank accordingly:
– Blood Alcohol Content under .10
- License suspension – 6 months;
- Fine – $400.00;
- Jail – 48 hours – 30 days; or
- 48 hours of Community Service.
– With B.A.C between .10 and .16
- License suspension – 6 months;
- Fine – $500.00;
- Jail – 72 hours –30 days; or
- 72 hours of community service
– With a B.A.C. above .16
- License Suspension – 6 months;
- Fine – $1000.00;
- Jail – 30 days – 90 days; or
- 30 days of Community Service.
If you or a loved one face one of these rather steep DUI penalties, be sure to contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP to ensure your rights after a DUI are taken into proper account. You can reach our Baxter Village office in Fort Mill, South Carolina at 803-548-4444, or toll free at 877-374-5999.
Mar 11, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
A Lancaster, South Carolina man is being charged with assault, criminal domestic violence, and malicious injury to property. According to the police report, the incident occurred at Spoke Bar and Grill in Lancaster. It is alleged that the man confronted a woman about speaking to another woman, and then punched the other woman in the face.
Thereafter, the woman left, walking into another bar; later in the night, the two met once again. Witnesses say that the boyfriend demanded that she come with him, backed her into a wall, grabbed her by the throat, and punched her in the face. Finally, as the man was walking out of the bar, he allegedly engaged in a fight with a bouncer at the bar.
A night of drinking can easily turn sour as alcoholic drinks are consumed; this can easily be escalated when personal issues are present in the life of someone who begins to drink. If you or someone close to you has been involved in an altercation, or are being charged with assault or battery as a result of a night out on the town, call the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP. For a consultation call 803-548-4444, or toll free at 877-374-5999.
