Journal of the Senate
of the First Session of the 111th General Assembly
of the State of South Carolina
being the Regular Session Beginning Tuesday, January 10, 1995

Page Finder Index
| Printed Page 2970, May 23 | Printed Page 2990, May 23 |
Printed Page 2980 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
(a) Merchants' Association seminar on fraud, checks, and shoplifting (1977);
(b) Citizens' Law Forum (1979 and 1994); and
(c) presentations to local magistrates on:
(1) search and seizure laws (1982);
(2) arrest warrants and arraignment process (1985);
(3) criminal domestic violence (1990);
(4) preparing arrest warrants and bail guidelines (1992);
(5) video arraignment procedures (1992);
(6) landlord-tenant law updates (1993);
(7) civil appeals process (1994);
(8) assessments calculations and procedures (1994); and
(9) new crime bill (1995).
Mr. Paslay wrote "Contracts, Annual Survey of S.C. Law, 1969" in the South Carolina Law Review.
Mr. Paslay was sued in 1981 in the matter of James E. Loftin v. James Paslay and Roland Jones, Magistrates. The matter was brought by a defendant in a forgery case. Mr. Paslay had issued a search warrant for the defendant's residence for evidence of a forged check that he had presented to a local bank. The defendant had fled with the check when a teller recognized him as a person who had previously passed bad checks. The search warrant was later determined to have been properly issued, but executed improperly. Mr. Paslay was dismissed as a defendant prior to trial.
(3) Professional Experience:
The Joint Committee has concerns that Mr. Paslay's experience in circuit court was not recent and apparently limited in nature. The Joint Committee believes that this concern is lessened because of Mr. Paslay's substantial magisterial court trial experience.
Mr. Paslay was admitted to the Bar in 1971. He was a partner in the firm of Paslay & Paslay from 1971 to 1984. His practice during this time was general and included domestic relations, workers' compensation, criminal trial defense, consumer law, probate practice, and plaintiff and defendant civil trial litigation.
Mr. Paslay was an associate judge on nights and weekends for the Spartanburg County Civil and Criminal Court from 1973 to 1979. He was appointed to be a full-time magistrate in 1979 and still serves in that capacity.
Mr. Paslay provided the Joint Committee with 5 of his most significant orders which he described as follows:
Printed Page 2981 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
(a) State v. Lee Harder: Criminal case involving newly enacted dangerous dog laws. Conviction upheld on appeal to circuit court.
(b) State v. Tyrus Cooper: This case involved issues of search and seizure, roadside interrogation, and admissibility of evidence. Upheld on appeal to circuit court.
(c) Mary Magnum Eaton v. Bud Moss d/b/a Circle Body Shop: This case involved competing priorities of liens, ownership and possession rights to personal property, and the law of bailments.
(d) Housing Authority of the City of Spartanburg v. Sandra: This case involved issues of ejectment of tenants in public housing units and an interpretation of the rights and duties of landlord and tenant.
(e) State v. Steve O'Sullivan: Criminal case involving sufficiency of arrest warrant and the issue of who may initiate criminal process. Upheld on appeal.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Paslay's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Paslay was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Mr. Paslay is married with 2 children, ages 21 and 19.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Paslay appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Paslay has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Paslay served in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1968 to 1976.
Mr. Paslay was a part-time Spartanburg County judge from 1973 to 1979 and has been a full-time magistrate since 1979.
Mr. Paslay was an unsuccessful candidate for the Spartanburg City Council in 1972.
Mr. Paslay is a member of the Spartanburg Arts Council and a not-for-profit corporation founded to help spread computer literacy to members and their families, particularly the use of computers in graphics and music.
Printed Page 2982 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
(9)Ethics:
Mr. Paslay reported on his application materials that he has spent $111 on his campaign.

Mr. Paslay testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Paslay meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the offices he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Paslay qualified and said:
He has significant experience in the judicial system, having served as a Magistrate Court Judge for approximately 22 years. In that capacity he has had experience in the trial of both civil and criminal cases.
He is respected by an overwhelming majority of the members of the Bar contacted for his legal skills, impartiality, judicial temperament, and promptness and industry.
His character, integrity, and reputation are considered excellent.

John M. Rollins, Jr., Esquire

Candidate for the Circuit Court of the 7th Judicial Circuit

Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Mr. Rollins was screened on May 9, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
Mr. Rollins demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Rollins to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Rollins is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Rollins graduated from Samford University Law School in 1988 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Mr. Rollins has practiced law with his father, John M Rollins, Sr., since his graduation from law school. His practice has included

Printed Page 2983 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
criminal, civil, probate, domestic, real estate, and administrative law matters. He has served as the City of Greer Public Defender since 1988 and as a Greenville County Contract Public Defender since 1990.
Mr. Rollins described his practice over the past 5 years as 20% civil, 40% criminal, and 40% domestic.
Mr. Rollins provided the Joint Committee with 5 of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) State v. Chandler: Defendant charged with murder and armed robbery in what a police witness described as the bloodiest murder in Greenville County. Verdict of not guilty on both counts.
(b) State v. Saam: Defendant charged with murder. State presented 32 witnesses, some of whom were agents of the FBI as the crime was interstate. Guilty verdict.
(c) Robinson v. State of South Carolina: Post-conviction relief action. Conviction for accessory after the fact of a felony was upheld after a 4-day trial.
(d) Landrum v. Robinson: Case involved college support for an adult child of divorced parents. Case appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals where is was affirmed.
(e) Encarnacion Junior Molleda: Complicated murder case involving DNA forensic evidence. State proved that a drop of blood on the defendant's shoe was similar to blood of the victim. Worked with the expert who appeared in the World Trade Center bombing trial.
Mr. Rollins has handled one appeal, the Landrum v. Robinson matter discussed above.
In response to the Joint Committee's request for a list of circuit court matters Mr. Rollins took to trial over the last 2 years, Mr. Rollins provided the Joint Committee with the following list:
(a) City of Greer v. Weinzettle: Leaving the scene of an accident. Jury trial. Prosecuted the case for the city.
(b) State v. Chandler: Murder and armed robbery. Jury trial. State's witness stated that this was the bloodiest murder in Greenville County. Grisly scenes of the crime were presented to the jury on videotape.
(c) State v. Hill: Autobreaking/grand larceny. Jury trial.
(d) Dixon v. State: Post-conviction relief hearing. State v. White review granted.
(e) State v. Scott: Accessory before and after grand larceny. Bench trial.
(f) State v. Johnson: DUI 2nd. Jury trial.
Printed Page 2984 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
(g) State v. Simpson: Possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Jury trial.
(h) Moorehead v. State: Post-conviction relief hearing. Defendant did not have an attorney at the plea.
(i) State v. Blakely: Possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Jury trial.
(j) State v. Rooney: Grandfather charged with molesting his granddaughter. Jury trial.
(k) State v. Molleda: Complicated murder trial involving DNA evidence and the testimony of 2 DNA expert witnesses. Jury trial.
(l) State v. Kinsey: Jury trial in absentia on trafficking cocaine charges.
(m) Robinson v. State: Very complicated PCR hearing which lasted 4 days.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Rollins had engaged in an active trial practice, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Rollins' temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Rollins was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Mr. Rollins is married and does not have any children. His wife is an attorney.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Rollins appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Rollins has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Rollins has been a member of the South Carolina Army National Guard since 1981.
Mr. Rollins is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Rollins testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
Printed Page 2985 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Rollins meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Rollins qualified and said:
He has engaged in a general law practice since his admission to the bar in 1988. His primary emphasis has been in criminal and domestic law, including being a contract lawyer with the county public defender's office. He has also handled civil matters ranging from estate matters to personal injury, although civil matters were resolved with trial.
Those interviewed gave Mr. Rollins high marks for his honesty, integrity, and work ethic. He is considered to possess the abilities needed to balance an appropriate judicial temperament with a control of the courtroom.
During the interview process the question arose whether his age (33) and lack of civil trial experience in court would adversely affect his qualifications. The committee felt his overall legal experience qualified him for the position sought.

H. T. Abbott, III, Esquire

Candidate for the Family Court of the 15th Circuit

Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Mr. Abbott was screened on May 8,1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
Mr. Abbott demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
Mr. Abbott indicated in his application that he owns a small number of shares of stock in a bank and would recuse himself from any action involving a member of the Board of Directors, a shareholder, or their immediate families. Mr. Abbott also indicated that he would recuse himself from a matter involving a member of the Board of Directors of the Horry Electric Cooperative, Inc., or the board member's immediate family as he currently serves as attorney to the Board of Directors.
Mr. Abbott reported in his application materials that he has been cited for "hunting over bait." Mr. Abbott's SLED report showed 4 Fish and Wildlife violations and a consequential loss of his hunting license. The violations are as follows:

Printed Page 2986 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
(a) On 9/20/86, Mr. Abbott was cited for shooting dove over bait and was apparently fined although his SLED report did not list the fine amount.
(b) On 11/26/86, Mr. Abbott was cited for both shooting duck over bait and shooting after hours. He was fined $225 for the first citation and $125 for the second.
(c) On 9/8/90, Mr. Abbott was charged with shooting dove over bait. He pled guilty and was fined $325.
Mr. Abbott reported on his application materials that the incidents occurred during invited hunts on property he did not own. He said that the offense occurs when the area is baited or has been baited within the last 10 days and requires no specific intent or knowledge, only that he be present. Mr. Abbott said that he paid a fine, no longer dove hunts, and duck hunts only on public property. Mr. Pearly Britt, a retired wildlife officer and personal friend of Mr. Abbott's, provided the Joint Committee with an affidavit in which he recommended Mr. Abbott for judicial office and reminded the Joint Committee that the wildlife violations for which Mr. Abbott was cited are strict liability statutes requiring no showing of intent or prior knowledge.
Mr. Abbott serves on the Fee Disputes Board for the 15th Circuit.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Abbott to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Abbott's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Abbott has taught 1 course at Coastal Carolina University and 6 courses at Horry-Georgetown Technical College. All the courses consisted of material designed to give a general overview of the law and emphasize business and contract issues.
Mr. Abbott practiced with his father upon his graduation from law school in 1972 and has been a sole practitioner since 1975. He also serves as the Board Attorney for the Horry Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Mr. Abbott described his practice over the last 5 years as 50% domestic, 48% civil, and 2% criminal. He said that he appears in state court "almost weekly." Mr. Abbott indicated that over the last 5 years 10% of his practice has involved jury matters and 25 to 35% has been non-jury.
Mr. Abbott has handled 3 domestic appeals. The 5 significant matters he listed for the Joint Committee consisted of:
Printed Page 2987 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
(a) an action for a resulting trust established in estate lands of the plaintiff's husband which were previously deeded to the defendant;
(b) a DSS abuse matter;
(c) an action for divorce in which custody, child support, alimony, and attorney fees were at issue;
(d) an action, based on allegations of perjured testimony, to overturn an order of the court and for divorce and the grounds of adultery; and
(e) an action for reimbursement of funds allegedly obtained by forgery of a check prior to the decedent's death.
Mr. Abbott provided the Joint Committee with a list of matters he has handled over the past 2 years that he believes are representative of the breadth and complexity of his family court practice. The list of matters included:
(a) Stroud v. Stroud: Mr. Abbott represented the wife in an action for separate support and maintenance, a restraining order, equitable division of real and personal property, support, and attorney fees. The parties had been married for 31 years and had 4 adult children. The husband was the owner and operator of a large farming operation with substantial farm property. He was also heavily in debt with numerous liens and encumbrances of record. The wife had been a homemaker.
(b) D.S.S. v. Collins: The natural parents of a minor child were divorced and the father given custody. The mother, following the divorce, moved to Ohio. Acting on allegations of abuse, the Horry County Department of Social Services filed an action against both parents and obtained custody of the minor child. Mr. Abbott filed an answer requesting custody on behalf of the mother. Following the trial, the court found the allegations of abuse to be founded, the father restrained and prohibited from any contact with the child, legal custody given to DSS with physical placement with the mother and upon a favorable Interstate Compact Report, for legal custody to be transferred to the mother. Legal and physical custody were granted to the mother by subsequent order. A collateral action was filed by the father seeking to have a child custody decree of Ohio registered in South Carolina. The out-of-state decree was registered, but the court specifically held that the out-of-state decree had been modified by the subsequent South Carolina decree.
(c) Williams v. Williams: An action for divorce and/or separate support and maintenance, equitable division, use and possession of
Printed Page 2988 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
a former marital home, use and possession of vehicles, a restraining order, and attorney fees. The grounds for divorce were pled as physical cruelty, and although the court denied the request for divorce of those grounds, it found unwarranted physical contact by the husband and ordered the parties to live apart and separate.
(d) Causey v. Causey: An action for divorce on the grounds of 1 year continuous separation without cohabitation, incorporation of certain provisions of a previous order of the court, child support, and equitable division of property. The original allegations concerned adultery by the wife with a family member and claims to equitable division of the real property. Mr. Abbott's client, the husband, had also been diagnosed with a progressive physical disability.
(e) D.S.S. v. Rowell: This was a case Mr. Abbott handled pro bono for a woman whose child was taken from her home by DSS because of alleged sexual abuse. Attempts at custody and visitation agreements failed, but custody was eventually returned to the mother after the court dismissed the matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
(f) Hyman v. Hyman: This was an action for divorce that involved complicated issues of child custody and support.
(g) Kelly v. Kelly: This was an action for divorce that involved complicated issues of alimony and equitable division.
(h) Talbot v. Talbot: This was an action for divorce on the grounds of 1 year continuous separation and for custody, child support, visitation rights, alimony, equitable division of property and debt, and attorney fees.
(i) Knaggs v. Lilly: Mr. Abbott represented the paramour of a father who had obtained custody of his child in an earlier action for divorce. The father died and the child's mother sued the paramour for custody. The court first awarded the paramour custody, but later granted the mother custody conditioned on her obtaining training on how to deal with the child's medical problems. The mother never did so and DSS was eventually granted custody. Mr. Abbott's client was named as trustee for the child.
(j) Smith v. Smith: An action for divorce that involved issues of custody, support, and equitable division.
Mr. Abbott served as a municipal judge for the City of Conway from 1977 to 1984. The Conway City Council appointed Mr. Abbott to serve in this position and his jurisdiction was limited to criminal offenses in which the maximum penalty could not exceed 30 days imprisonment or a fine of $200. Mr. Abbott indicated that he did not
Printed Page 2989 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995
write orders during his service on the bench and that all matters were disposed of by a finding of guilty or not guilty.
Mr. Abbott has occasionally served as a Special Referee for the 15th Judicial Circuit, but has done so on an infrequent basis during the last 2 years.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Abbott's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Abbott was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Mr. Abbott is married with 2 grown children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Abbott appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Abbott has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Abbott was a municipal judge from 1977 to 1984 and has occasionally acted as a Special Referee for the 15th Judicial Circuit. He also served on the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Conway from 1984 to 1986.
Mr. Abbott indicated that he is a member of:
(a) Conway Main Street Program;
(b) Conway Chamber of Commerce;
(c) Ducks Unlimited;
(d) South Carolina Waterfowl Association;
(e) Riverside Club; and
(f) Old Gunn Hunting Club.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Abbott reported in his application materials that he has spent $86.33 on his campaign.
Mr. Abbott testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

| Printed Page 2970, May 23 | Printed Page 2990, May 23 |
Page Finder Index

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 2:11 P.M.