Background
Mia Anderson brought a medical malpractice, wrongful death, and survival action on behalf of the estate of Jessie Heyward against Dr. Richard Miles Thompson and his practice group, ACS Primary Care Physicians – Southeast, P.C. The case proceeded to a jury trial in Berkeley County circuit court. During trial, concerns arose about the conduct of the jury foreperson and another juror. Reports reached counsel that the foreperson had directed an expletive at the court, and that an unidentified juror had stated behind a closed door that he or she would “discuss [the] case, if [he or she] want[ed] to,” suggesting willful disregard of the court’s instruction against premature deliberations.
Plaintiff’s counsel raised these concerns with the circuit court at the first opportunity; defendants’ counsel joined in the objection. After Anderson’s second objection, the court stated it was “not making a final decision.” Defendants then made a third objection. The circuit court declined to question or remove the foreperson, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant physicians. Anderson’s motion for a new trial was denied, and she appealed.
The Court’s Holding
A unanimous panel reversed and remanded for a new trial. The court first addressed several threshold matters in Anderson’s favor: her motion for a new trial timely stayed the thirty-day appeal deadline even though the clerk of court initially rejected her filing for containing unredacted information (clerks of court are not authorized to reject filings on that basis and must instead request an amended document); her statement of issues on appeal was sufficiently concise; and the juror-misconduct issue was preserved, because her requests were sufficiently specific and contemporaneous and it would have been futile for her to repeat verbatim the same request defendants had just made.
On the merits, the court held the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to conduct the “probing and tactful inquiry” required under South Carolina law when a juror’s conduct raises a genuine question about qualification to render a verdict. A juror who explicitly declares an intention to disregard the court’s instructions would be rendered unqualified, and a juror exhibiting open hostility toward the court raises the same concern. Under State v. Hurd, 325 S.C. 384 (Ct. App. 1996), and Keene v. CAN Holdings, LLC, 426 S.C. 357 (Ct. App. 2019), when an allegation of premature jury deliberations arises during trial, the circuit court must conduct a hearing to ascertain whether premature deliberations occurred and whether they were prejudicial. Failing to do so was reversible error.
Key Takeaways
- When evidence surfaces during trial that a juror has exhibited hostile behavior toward the court or explicitly declared an intention to disobey instructions against premature deliberations, the circuit court is required to conduct a “probing and tactful inquiry” to determine whether that juror is qualified to serve; declining to do so is an abuse of discretion requiring a new trial.
- Clerks of court in South Carolina lack authority to reject filings on the ground that exhibits contain unredacted information; the correct response is to request an amended filing, and a timely new-trial motion that is wrongly rejected does not lose its effect on the appeal clock.
- Issue preservation does not require using the exact legal label for a doctrine; a request to “check in” with or remove the foreperson, raised at the first opportunity, is sufficient. Repeating a just-denied request would be futile and is not required to preserve the issue.
- This is an unpublished opinion under Rule 268(d)(2), SCACR, and carries no precedential value under South Carolina appellate rules, though the underlying doctrine it applies is settled.
Why It Matters
For South Carolina civil trial lawyers, Anderson v. Thompson is a reminder that juror-misconduct issues must be raised immediately — and that the circuit court must act on them. The obligation to conduct a meaningful inquiry does not hinge on proof of actual prejudice at the time the misconduct surfaces; the court must inquire and make a record. Counsel who observe potential juror hostility or signs of premature deliberations should place objections on the record promptly, request specific relief (inquiry or removal), and, if the court declines, document the futility of further objection.
The decision also underscores that South Carolina clerks of court play a ministerial role in the filing process: they cannot act as screening agents for redaction compliance and must accept filings that parties submit, leaving it to the court to address any deficiencies. Counsel who receive rejection notices from clerks on grounds other than those expressly authorized by the rules of civil procedure should be prepared to challenge the rejection.