Dupont v. Cnty. of Jasper

Full title: Derrick Dupont, Appellant, v. County of Jasper, Jasper County Sheriff's…

Court: STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: May 21, 2014

Appellate Case No. 2012-213115 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 21, 2014)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2012-213115 Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-201

05-21-2014

Derrick Dupont, Appellant, v. County of Jasper, Jasper County Sheriff's Office, Ernest Walker, Defendants, Of whom the Jasper County Sheriff's Office is the Respondent.

Clifford Bush, III and Fatima A. Zeidan, both of The Law Offices of Clifford Bush III, LLC, of Beaufort, for Appellant. Marshall H. Waldron, Jr. and Otto Edworth Liipfert, III, both of Griffith Sadler & Sharp, PA, of Beaufort, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

Appeal From Jasper County

Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge

AFFIRMED

Clifford Bush, III and Fatima A. Zeidan, both of The Law Offices of Clifford Bush III, LLC, of Beaufort, for Appellant.

Marshall H. Waldron, Jr. and Otto Edworth Liipfert, III, both of Griffith Sadler & Sharp, PA, of Beaufort, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: In this appeal of a tort action, Derrick Dupont argues the trial court erred in (1) charging the jury on comparative negligence; (2) admitting evidence of his car accident; and (3) allowing testimony regarding his appearance at a roll call in general sessions court. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Stephens ex rel. Lillian C. v. CSX Transp., Inc., 400 S.C. 503, 520, 735 S.E.2d 505, 514 (Ct. App. 2012) (holding appellant was not prejudiced by the trial court's jury charge when the jury's verdict as to the first issue made it unnecessary for the jury to reach the issue with the disputed charge); Whaley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 362 S.C. 456, 483, 609 S.E.2d 286, 300 (2005) (holding the admission of evidence is within the trial court's discretion and its decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion); State v. Culbreath, 377 S.C. 326, 333, 659 S.E.2d 268, 272 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding a defendant may open the door to what would be otherwise improper evidence through his own introduction of evidence or witness examination).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.