Katrina Stroman v. Samuel Jeffords

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.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Katrina Stroman, Respondent/Appellant,
v.
Samuel Jeffords, Appellant/Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2020-000938
Appeal From Orangeburg County
Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-276
Heard May 4, 2023 – Filed August 2, 2023
AFFIRMED
Damon Christian Wlodarczyk, of Riley Pope & Laney,
LLC, of Columbia, for Appellant/Respondent.
Virginia Watson Williams, David Reynolds Williams,
and Charlie Hiram Williams, III, all of Williams &
Williams, of Orangeburg, for Respondent/Appellant.
PER CURIAM: This is a cross-appeal arising out of a dog bite lawsuit brought
by Katrina Stroman against Samuel Jeffords. On appeal, Jeffords argues the trial
court erred by (1) denying his motion for a directed verdict on strict liability,
mooting the post-trial motion for a new trial; and (2) granting Stroman's motion to
reconsider its Batson1 ruling and ordering a new trial. In her cross-appeal,
Stroman argues the trial court erred by (1) granting Jeffords's directed verdict
motion on common law negligence because he had the requisite control and
knowledge of a dangerous situation under the common law negligence analysis of
Clea 2 and (2) granting Jeffords's directed verdict motion because she otherwise
proved common law negligence beyond a landlord's duties. We affirm.
Weighing the totality of the facts and circumstances in the record, we hold the trial
court did not err in granting Stroman's motion for a new trial on the basis of a
Batson violation. See RRR, Inc. v. Toggas, 378 S.C. 174, 182, 662 S.E.2d 438, 442
(Ct. App. 2008) ("The grant or denial of new trial motions rests within the
discretion of the circuit court and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal
unless its findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions
reached are controlled by error of law."); State v. Haigler, 334 S.C. 623, 628, 515
S.E.2d 88, 90 (1999) ("The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution prohibits the striking of a venireperson on the
basis of race."); State v. Blackwell, 420 S.C. 127, 148, 801 S.E.2d 713, 724 (2017)
("Whether a Batson violation has occurred must be determined by examining the
totality of the facts and circumstances in the record." (quoting State v. Shuler, 344
S.C. 604, 615, 545 S.E.2d 805, 810 (2001))); State v. Weatherall, 431 S.C. 485,
493, 848 S.E.2d 338, 343 (Ct. App. 2020) ("The trial court's findings regarding
purposeful discrimination are accorded great deference and will be set aside on
appeal only if clearly erroneous." (quoting Blackwell, 420 S.C. at 148, 801 S.E.2d
at 724)); id. at 494, 848 S.E.2d at 343 ("In order to establish a prima facie case of
discrimination, the challenging party must show (1) that the prospective juror was
a member of a protected group; (2) that the State exercised peremptory challenges
to remove members of the group from the jury; and (3) that these facts and other
relevant circumstances raise an inference that the State used peremptory challenges
to exclude the prospective juror from the jury on account of their group."); State v.
Edwards, 384 S.C. 504, 508-09, 682 S.E.2d 820, 822 (2009) ("The opponent must
show the race or gender neutral explanation was mere pretext, which is generally
established by showing the party did not strike a similarly situated member of
another race or gender."); State v. Cochran, 369 S.C. 308, 317, 631 S.E.2d 294,
299 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[W]here a strike is based solely on a purported specific
demeanor and disposition, and the trial judge makes an express and contrary
finding, the deferential clearly erroneous standard of review applies.").
1
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
2
Clea v. Odom, 394 S.C. 175, 714 S.E.2d 542 (2011).
Because we affirm the grant of a new trial, we need not consider whether the trial
court erred in making its directed verdict rulings at trial. See Futch v. McAllister
Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999)
(ruling an appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination
of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal).
AFFIRMED.
WILLIAMS, C.J., and GEATHERS and VERDIN, JJ., concur.