Hassell v. City of Columbia

430 S.C. 620

846 S.E.2d 373

Darris HASSELL, Respondent,

v.The CITY OF COLUMBIA, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001750

Opinion No. 5734

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Submitted May 1, 2020

Filed July 1, 2020

Chad Nicholas Johnston, of Columbia, and Robert Walker Humphrey, II, of Charleston, both of Willoughby & Hoefer, PA, and Teresa A. Knox, of Columbia, all for Appellant.

Paul L. Reeves, of Reeves and Lyle, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.

THOMAS, J.:

The City of Columbia appeals a jury verdict awarding Darris Hassell $200,075 in his action against the City for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and negligent supervision. The City argues the circuit court erred in (1) refusing to order a new trial based on a juror's failure to disclose a prior arrest during voir dire and (2) denying its motion for a new trial nisi remittitur. We affirm.

FACTS

Hassell, a professor at the University of South Carolina (USC)-Lancaster, was stopped while driving by City of Columbia police officer Cameron Duecker on the night of February 18, 2014, in downtown Columbia. Although Hassell stated he was not a drinker, Duecker reported he smelled alcohol and required Hassell to perform sobriety tests in front of people gathered nearby. The stop was video recorded, but the video was lost.

Duecker next transported Hassell to the police station, handcuffed him to a wall, and gave him the breathalyzer test. This test was also video recorded, and it indicated a blood alcohol concentration of 0.00.¹ Duecker transported Hassell to the detention center and then to a hospital for a urine sample, which was also lost. Hassell was returned to the detention center and moved into a cell with nine to ten people. He was released on bond at 6:00 p.m. on February 19 and ticketed with making an improper turn and driving under the influence (DUI). The charges were eventually dropped.

Hassell testified he missed work, was embarrassed and humiliated, felt helpless, had to call his aunt from jail and hear her cry, knew his mother would find out, and had to explain the incident to the USC-Lancaster administration. He also testified he missed three doses of his prescription medication. Finally, he testified his car was towed and he had to pay $75 to retrieve it. Christopher Harris, Hassell's student assistant, testified that at the time of the incident, he looked for Hassell for two days, not knowing where he was and reaching a full voice mailbox each time he called. When Hassell told Harris about the arrest, Hassell was very embarrassed.

At the end of the trial, by verdict form filed May 19, 2017, the jury found for Hassell on all three causes of action and awarded him $200,075 in damages. On May 31, 2017, the City filed a motion for a new trial, and/or new trial nisi remittitur , arguing, inter alia , the verdict was punitive despite statutory prohibition of such and the damages were grossly excessive. After a hearing, the circuit court denied all motions by order filed June 27, 2017.

On June 30, 2017, the City filed another motion for a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence of juror misconduct. During voir dire, the court had asked, "[H]ave you or a close family member ever been arrested by a City of Columbia police officer?" One juror had responded, indicating his or her son had been arrested. The juror who became the foreperson did not respond. The City alleged it had contacted jurors after the verdict was returned and during efforts to locate the foreperson, it learned he had been arrested by an officer of the City one year prior to the trial.

During a hearing on the motion, the City, represented by new counsel, relied on Long v. Norris & Associates , 342 S.C. 561, 538 S.E.2d 5 (Ct. App. 2000), arguing it was entitled to a new trial based on juror concealment. Hassell argued Gray v. Bryant , 298 S.C. 285, 379 S.E.2d 894 (1989), applied, which mandated a denial of the motion for a new trial because the City had the opportunity to find the information and chose not to do it despite the information being in two different places in the City's own files and in the public record. In addition, Hassell argued "everybody got a fair trial." Hassell finally argued there was no evidence of intentional concealment by the juror, who could merely not have heard the question.

The circuit court noted,

Forget the venire. They give you a list every Monday, and it has whether or not a juror has been arrested.... And whatever judge qualified the panel that day, he would have known that somebody had an arrest for anything from trespassing to shoplifting or even a speeding ticket almost. So, the information was available, should have been available, on this jury the Monday morning when the venire was qualified. That's how it works around here....

I'm telling you what the courthouse standard practice is. I don't know what the [C]ity does, but every Monday when you qualify the jury, ... the clerk ... has a list of everybody with a prior record for anything above a speeding ticket, okay? So, that information on this jury should have been available to the [C]ity Monday morning on the week of that trial. That's how it works here in Richland County.

By order filed July 27, 2018, the court denied the City's motion for a new trial based on juror concealment.² Hassell moved for sanctions and attorney's fees, arguing the City's trial counsel did not appear at the posttrial motions; thus, no information was available regarding what actions the City took or failed to take regarding the allegation of juror misconduct. Hassell also argued the City made no effort to introduce evidence at the hearing to support its position on juror concealment. This appeal followed, and this court granted the City's motion to enforce the automatic stay; thus, Hassell's motion for sanctions and attorney's fees remains pending in the circuit court.³

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"A denial of a new trial based on alleged jury misconduct is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." State v. Galbreath , 359 S.C. 398, 402, 597 S.E.2d 845, 847 (Ct. App. 2004). In addition, a trial court's denial of a motion based upon a juror's misleading or incomplete answers during voir dire will be affirmed absent a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Id. ; Long , 342 at 568, 538 S.E.2d at 9 ("The granting of a new trial based on a juror's failure to honestly respond to the court's voir dire remains within the sound discretion of the trial court.").

"When considering a motion for a new trial based on the inadequacy or excessiveness of the jury's verdict, the trial court must distinguish between awards that are merely unduly liberal or conservative and awards that are actuated by passion, caprice, or prejudice." Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp. , 361 S.C. 9, 27, 602 S.E.2d 772, 781 (2004). "If the amount of the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to be the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, or some other influence outside the evidence, the trial judge must grant a new trial absolute." Harrison v. Bevilacqua , 354 S.C. 129, 140, 580 S.E.2d 109, 115 (2003) (quoting O'Neal v. Bowles , 314 S.C. 525, 527, 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993) ). "The decision to grant or deny a new trial absolute based on the excessiveness of a verdict rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not ordinarily be disturbed on appeal." Elam , 361 S.C. at 27, 602 S.E.2d at 781.

LAW/ANALYSIS

A. Juror Concealment/Misconduct⁴

The City argues the circuit court erred in denying its motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. We disagree.

The jury rendered its verdict on May 18, 2017, the City's first motion for a new trial was denied on June 27, 2017, and the City filed its second motion for a new trial, based on newly discovered evidence of juror misconduct, on June 30, 2017. Like the circuit court, we begin our analysis reviewing Rules 59 and 60(b), SCRCP. Rule 59 does not apply because the motion was filed after the ten-day limitation of Rule 59. As to Rule 60(b), we rely on Gray .

In Gray , a juror failed to respond to a voir dire question asking whether any jurors had been treated by the defendant doctor in a malpractice action. 298 S.C. at 286, 379 S.E.2d at 895. The appellant filed an amended motion for a new trial more than ten days after the verdict, but shortly after the juror's letter "lauding physicians and criticizing people who sue doctors" was published in a newspaper. Id. In addressing the timeliness of the motion, our supreme court stated,

It is our view that Rules 59 and 60(b) must be read together. Rule 60(b), [SCRCP ], reads in pertinent part:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: ... (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b) ; ....

Id. at 287, 379 S.E.2d at 895. The court in Gray further noted as follows:

This issue was addressed in Smith v. Quattlebaum , 223 S.C. 384, 76 S.E.2d 154 (1953). In Smith , defendant moved for a new trial because of an after-discovered relationship of juror to plaintiff. [Our supreme court] ruled that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear a motion for a new trial because of the after or newly-discovered evidence exception. The Court stated further:

It is the duty of the trial [court] to ascertain the qualifications of the jurors, and when the discharge of this responsibility is thwarted by mischance, or otherwise, it is within the court's inherent power to remedy the situation when brought to [its] attention, even after sine die adjournment of court, by the granting of a new trial, if in its discretion, necessary. Smith , 76 S.E.2d at 157.

While the Smith case relied on S.C. Code Ann. § 10-1215 (1952), the same principle applies under Rule 60(b). In the instant case, the newly discovered evidence, [the juror's] predisposition, was not discernible until [the juror's] letter

...