Camden v. Hilton

• Decision Date: 07 June 2004
• Docket Number: No. 3820.,3820.
• Citation: 360 S.C. 164,600 S.E.2d 88
• Parties: Ryan CAMDEN, Respondent, v. Jeannie HILTON, Appellant.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

360 S.C. 164

600 S.E.2d 88

Ryan CAMDEN, Respondent, v. Jeannie HILTON, Appellant.

No. 3820.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard May 13, 2004.

Decided June 7, 2004.

Rehearing Denied August 18, 2004.

Andrew F. Lindemann, of Columbia, and Lake Eric Summers, of Lexington, for Appellant.

Gaines W. Smith and James A. Stuckey, Jr., both of Charleston, for Respondent.

ANDERSON, J.:

Ryan Camden ("Respondent") commenced this action against former Goose Creek City Police Officer, Jeannie Hilton, ("Appellant") for false imprisonment and violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. After the jury returned a verdict for Respondent on the false imprisonment claim and a verdict for Appellant on the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, the trial court reformed the § 1983 verdict in Respondent's favor. Appellant appeals this ruling. We reverse.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 31, 1998, a robbery occurred at the First Federal Bank in Goose Creek, South Carolina. Many law enforcement agencies responded to the robbery, including the Goose Creek Police Department, the Berkeley County Sheriff's Department, the Charleston County Sheriff's Department, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

At or near the time law enforcement agencies were reacting to the bank robbery, Respondent began walking down College Park Road, located in close proximity to the bank. Deputy Jerry Wright of the Berkeley County Sheriff's Department pulled up behind Respondent and motioned him towards his car. Deputy Wright asked Respondent if he would accompany him for the purpose of answering some inquiries, as Respondent matched the general description of a robbery suspect who had been involved in a car chase with another Berkeley County deputy. Respondent agreed, and he was taken to the mobile command post set up by the various law enforcement agencies involved in investigating the robbery. Respondent professed he was handcuffed prior to being transported to the mobile command post and that he remained cuffed for the majority of his time there.

Upon arrival at the command post, Respondent testified he was introduced to Sheriff Dewitt who asked him again if he would agree to being queried. Respondent agreed, and Sheriff Dewitt questioned Respondent about the bank robbery and his automobile, a 1992 Honda Accord. Respondent averred that earlier in the day he loaned his car to two of his friends so that they could use it to get air in their car tire.

Following the questioning, Sheriff Dewitt asked Appellant to stand up and make a full turn so witnesses from the bank could see him and determine whether he was one of the people involved. Because none of the witnesses identified Respondent as one of the perpetrators, Sheriff Dewitt removed the handcuffs from Respondent, thanked him for his cooperation, and told him he was "free to go."

In connection with his release from custody, Sheriff Dewitt instructed Deputy Wright that Respondent was cleared of involvement in the bank robbery and to return him to where he was found. Sheriff Dewitt further informed Deputy Wright that he was to protect Respondent's identity from the various media organizations gathering at the command post.

Before Deputy Wright could carry out these instructions, Captain Yvonne Turner of the Goose Creek Police Department instructed Appellant to have Respondent transported to the Goose Creek Police Station. Captain Turner was the top-ranking official from the Goose Creek Police Department at the command post. Captain Turner ordered Respondent's detention because she was told the FBI wanted to question him further. In compliance with this order, Appellant asked another Goose Creek police officer to assist her in transporting Respondent to the police station. According to Appellant's testimony, the other officer's assistance was needed because she was driving an unmarked patrol car and it was police department policy to transport suspects in marked patrol cars if possible. After placing handcuffs back on Respondent, Appellant placed Respondent in the rear of the second officer's car.

Both cars left the command post with Appellant's vehicle in the lead position. According to Respondent, when his car arrived at the police station, Appellant "kept going." Appellant professed she did not see Respondent again after they left the command post.

Respondent declared he arrived at the police station at approximately 1:30 p.m. He was taken out of the patrol car by two policemen who led him through the station and into a small, windowless room, designated as the "Breathalyzer room," a room commonly used for testing persons charged with driving under the influence. Within a few minutes after being placed in the room, an FBI agent questioned Respondent for about five minutes. He remained handcuffed and alone in this room for the next several hours. After Appellant had been in this room for three or four hours, Detective Merrithew entered. Respondent asked the detective to find out what was going to happen to him. Detective Merrithew told Respondent a Berkeley County deputy was coming to transport him and the two individuals who borrowed his car earlier in the day. When the Berkeley County deputy arrived, however, he informed Detective Merrithew that he was not looking for Respondent and Respondent should have been sent home.

Detective Merrithew told Respondent he would discern what was occurring and about fifteen minutes later, he returned to the room, apologized, and removed Respondent's handcuffs. Detective Merrithew then gave Respondent a ride home around 7:00 p.m.

Respondent commenced this action averring violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as a state law claim of false imprisonment. The common law false imprisonment and the § 1983 action were submitted to the jury. The jury returned a defense verdict on the § 1983 claim. The jury awarded Respondent $3000 actual damages and $3000 punitive damages on the false imprisonment claim.

After the verdicts had been returned and the jury discharged, Respondent moved "to have the verdict conformed to grant [Respondent] judgment on the Section 1983 action." The motion was based on the fact that the jury awarded punitive damages on the state law claim, and concomitantly, all of the elements for recovery under § 1983 had been satisfied.

The trial court granted Respondent's motion because it found the elements for each cause of action were identical and the verdict on the state law claim supported a finding for Respondent on both causes of action. Appellant filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied.

ISSUES

I. Did Respondent waive his right to raise alleged inconsistencies in the verdicts by not objecting prior to the discharge of the jury?

II. Did the trial court improperly weigh the evidence, thereby invading the province of the jury, when it placed greater emphasis on one verdict over the other?

III. Did the trial court err in reconciling the verdicts when Respondent failed to move for a new trial?

IV. Is Appellant entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?

V. Did the trial court err in concluding the two verdicts were inconsistent and could not be reconciled as returned by the jury?

LAW/ANALYSIS

I. Waiver

Appellant argues Respondent waived his right to raise any alleged inconsistencies in the two verdicts because Respondent did not object until after the jury was discharged.

The rule that parties seeking to reform a verdict must voice their objection before the jury is discharged has been followed in South Carolina since at least 1920. See, e.g., Rhame v. City of Sumter, 113 S.C. 151, 154, 101 S.E. 832, 833 (1920), overruled on other grounds by Rourk v. Selvey, 252 S.C. 25, 164 S.E.2d 909 (1968)

("The defendant's counsel made no attempt to find out what the jury intended, and their objections come too late. It was [counsel's] business to clarify and ask for a correction and reformation of the verdict before the jury were [sic] discharged.").

In Dykema v. Carolina Emergency Physicians, P.C., 348 S.C. 549, 560 S.E.2d 894 (2002), our supreme court reaffirmed this principle. In Dykema, a wrongful death action against a hospital and medical provider, the jury awarded plaintiff $2,000,000 in actual damages against the hospital and $500,000 in damages against the medical provider. Id. at 552, 560 S.E.2d at 895. The trial court granted the medical provider's request for JNOV, reasoning that the failure of the jury to award actual damages precluded it from awarding punitive damages. Id.

In finding the trial court erred in granting the medical provider's motion for JNOV, the supreme court noted, "[t]his court has repeatedly held that a party should not be permitted to sit idly by while a verdict erroneous in form is being returned and witness its receipt without objection and later, after the jury has been discharged, claim advantage of the error, thus invited by acquiescence." Id. at 554, 560 S.E.2d at 896 (citations omitted).

We find the trial court erred in entertaining Respondent's post-trial motion, as the motion was not presented to the court prior to the jury being discharged.

II. Improper Weighing of Evidence

Appellant alleges that by favoring one verdict over the other, the trial court improperly weighed the evidence and thereby invaded the province of the jury. Specifically, Appellant asserts the trial court erred "in concluding that the intent of the jury could be ascertained from the verdict in favor of the Respondent on the state law claim. It is just as possible that the jury's actual intent was consistent with the defense verdict on the federal constitutional claim." We agree.

In Vinson v. Hartley, 324 S.C. 389, 477 S.E.2d 715 (Ct.App.1996), this court examined when it would be appropriate for a trial court to reform a jury verdict:

A trial court may amend a verdict in matters of form, but not of substance. A change of substance is a change affecting the jury's underlying decision,

...