State v. Richard Alexander Murdaugh

── State v. Richard Alexander Murdaugh ── Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Date: May 13, 2026 Category: General THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court The State, Respondent, v. Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Appellant. Appellate Case Nos. 2023-000392 and 2024-000576 Appeal from Colleton County Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge Jean Hoefer Toal, Circuit Court Judge Opinion No. 28329 Heard February 11, 2026 – Filed May 13, 2026 REVERSED AND REMANDED Richard A. Harpootlian, Phillip Donald Barber, and Andrew R. Hand, all of Richard A. Harpootlian, P.A.; James Mixon Griffin and Margaret Nicole Fox, both of Griffin Humphries LLC, all of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Samuel Creighton Waters, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, and Assistant Attorney General Joshua Abraham Edwards, all of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: For six weeks in early 2023, the eyes of the nation focused on Colleton County, where the State prosecuted notorious former attorney Richard Alexander Murdaugh for the murders of his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul. Both the State and Murdaugh's defense skillfully presented their cases to the jury as the trial court deftly presided over this complicated and high-profile matter. However, their efforts were in vain because Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill placed her fingers on the scales of justice, thereby denying Murdaugh his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. Our justice system provides—indeed demands—that every person is entitled to a fair trial, which includes an impartial jury untainted by external forces bent on influencing the jury toward a biased verdict. Although we are aware of the time, money, and effort expended for this lengthy trial, we have no choice but to reverse the denial of Murdaugh's motion for a new trial due to Hill's improper external influences on the jury and remand for a new trial. Because we order a new trial on this basis, it is not necessary that we review every evidentiary issue Murdaugh raises on appeal from his conviction. However, we address the admissibility of Murdaugh's financial crimes to offer guidance on this thorny issue to the trial court on remand. I. Factual and Procedural Background On March 2, 2023, Murdaugh was convicted of the murders of his wife, Margaret Murdaugh, and his son, Paul Murdaugh, as well as two counts of possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. The trial court (Judge Newman) sentenced him to life in prison. While his direct appeal of these convictions was pending at the court of appeals, Murdaugh filed a motion to hold the appeal in abeyance to allow him to file a motion for a new trial; the court of appeals granted this motion. On October 27, 2023, Murdaugh moved for a new trial, asserting Hill tampered with the jury by (1) advising it not to believe Murdaugh's testimony and other defense evidence; (2) pressuring it to reach a quick guilty verdict; and (3) misrepresenting information to the trial court in an attempt to have the court remove a juror she believed to favor the defense. He attached affidavits from several jurors to support his motion. Chief Justice Beatty appointed former Chief Justice Toal (post-trial court) to preside over this motion, as the trial court judge had recused himself. The post-trial court conducted the hearing of this motion on January 26 and 29, 2024. During the hearing, the post-trial court asked each juror (1) if the guilty verdict was an accurate statement about their verdict at that time; (2) whether their verdict was "based entirely on testimony, evidence, and law presented" in the case; (3) whether they heard Hill make any comment about the case before the verdict; and (4) whether their verdict was influenced in any way by any communications by Hill. Juror X, who testified on the first