|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The case of Bowen Turner – South Carolina’s notorious ‘fortunate son’ – is heading to the Palmetto State’s second-highest court this week.
This Tuesday (September 10, 2024), the S.C. court of appeals will hear two separate appeals relating to the sentencing of Turner following his controversial plea deal in 2022.
Described as a “poster boy for the injustice of influence,” Turner’s case helped highlight the unconscionable leniency South Carolina’s judicial system all-too-frequently shows to well-connected defendants – especially those with powerful lawyer-legislators representing them. Over a period of a little more than a year in 2018-2019, Turner was accused of committing three sexual assaults against three different young women in three different counties.
Former S.C. circuit court judge Markley Dennis ultimately sentenced him to five years of probation after the charges were whittled down to one count of first degree assault and battery in Orangeburg County. Prosecutors in the office of S.C. second circuit solicitor Bill Weeks failed to bring charges against Turner over another sexual assault that allegedly occurred in Calhoun County.
Despite facing serious charges at the age of sixteen – charges which could have landed him behind bars for decades – Turner managed to avoid prison (and the sex offender registry).
***
Turner was represented on his sexual assault charges by powerful S.C. Senate minority leader Brad Hutto. In fact, Hutto gained infamy when he slut-shamed one of Turner’s alleged victims. Court records suggested multiple attorneys, judges and solicitors were part of the process that led to Turner’s lenient sentencing and subsequent re-offenses. In fact, his case first appeared before now-retired judge Casey Manning – who has since been at the heart of several high-profile “Palmetto Injustice” scandals.
While Turner evaded consequences for his behavior, his alleged victims did not. On November 14, 2021, one of the three women he was accused of assaulting – Dallas Stoller – took her own life as a result of the emotional and psychological injuries she sustained (and due to the bullying she received at the hands of many in Orangeburg).
As for Turner, even after his sweetheart plea deal he couldn’t stay out of trouble. On Mother’s Day 2022, he was arrested in Orangeburg, S.C. after allegedly getting drunk, trying to lure a woman into a vehicle, lying to police and threatening to bite off the finger of a deputy. Turner was charged with public disorderly conduct, violation of probation, threatening a public employee and being a minor in possession of alcohol.
It was this incident which ultimately led to Turner’s probation being revoked in July 2022. He served sixteen months in the custody of the S.C. Department of Corrections (SCDC).
Once again, though, it didn’t take long for Turner to land on the wrong side of the law.
On Saturday, March 9, 2024, Turner was involved in a collision in Florence County resulting in five new charges being filed against him including resisting arrest, open container, driving under the influence (DUI), disorderly conduct and a seatbelt violation.
Turner is currently back in SCDC custody with a projected release date of April 8, 2028, although he is eligible for parole on January 31, 2025.
***
RELATED | BOWEN TURNER ARREST VIDEO RELEASED
***
THE RIGHTS OF A VICTIM…
One of the appeals being heard by the court was filed in March of 2023 by attorneys Sarah Ford, Tamika Cannon, and Terri Bailey of the South Carolina Victim Assistance Network (SCVAN). Submitted on behalf of one of Turner’s victims, the briefing (.pdf) accused the trial court of denying the victim’s constitutional rights by not allowing her to speak before Turner accepted a guilty plea.
The appeal emphasized the right of a victim to be informed and present at criminal proceedings – including plea hearings – and challenged the court’s decision on the timeliness of motions and a victims’ entitlement to a reasonable case disposition.
At issue was a hearing held on April 8, 2022. Leading up to this hearing, it was revealed that Turner violated the conditions of his bond more than 50 times. As attorneys for the victims prepared to make a case for his bond being revoked, they were notified on April 4, 2022 that solicitor Weeks “planned to make a plea offer to reduce the original charge of criminal sexual conduct to first degree to assault and battery.”
In response, victims’ attorneys filed a writ of mandamus (.pdf) asking the court to require law enforcement – or the solicitor – to enforce the bond order and arrest Turner. Another petition was filed (.pdf) asking the court to hold the bonding company in contempt for failing to report his many violations.
“GPS tracking is a joke when it’s not properly monitored,” Ford told reporter Martha Rose Brown of The (Orangeburg, S.C.) Times and Democrat at the time. “People think it protects victims and the community, but it doesn’t. The whole point of it is to protect our community and if it’s not monitored, what’s the point?”
Despite these filings, the hearing on the motion to revoke bond remained scheduled and “no notice was given that the hearing would be converted into a change of plea when egregious violations of bond were pending.” The victims said they were never notified the proceeding was going to become plea hearing – which exactly what happened on April 8, 2024.
Once this was discovered, attorneys filed – and electronically served – a motion to enforce the victim’s constitutional rights and requested to be heard prior to the plea hearing. The trial court denied those motions, “not on the merits, but on the basis that each was untimely filed and served in violation of ‘the four day rule’.” Attorneys for the victim moved the court for a continuance in order to comply with the court’s four day rule – but were denied this motion as well.
The appeals court will review findings of the circuit court related to victim’s timeliness of filing and service of her motions and her request to be allowed to present and be heard prior to the plea acceptance.
***
RELATED | BOWEN TURNER’S PROBATION REVOKED
***
WAS TURNER WRONGLY PLACED ON THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY?
In addition to determining whether the rights of Turner’s alleged victim were violated, the appellate court will also consider whether Turner’s rights were violated when he was placed on the sex offender registry.
Attorneys for Turner filed a motion (.pdf) on April 23, 2023 arguing a judge “abused his discretion by ordering (him) to register as a sex offender where the state failed to show good cause existed for placing appellant on the registry, specifically, where there was no evidence appellant was at risk of reoffending.”
When Turner took his plea agreement in April of 2022, he waived grand jury presentment pursuant to the recommended sentence agreement. At the conclusion of this hearing, Dennis sentenced Turner to an “indeterminate period not to exceed six years pursuant to the Youthful Offender Act (YOA).”
This sentence was suspended upon the service of five years’ probation with various conditions attached, although Dennis made clear at the time any violation of his parole would mean Turner would be “required to register as a sex offender.”
Turner did indeed violate the terms of his probation when he was arrested on Mother’s Day of 2022. According to Turner’s attorneys, he was prepared for S.C. circuit court judge Roger M. Young Sr. to activate the YOA sentence but “requested the judge hold the sex offender registry legal issue in abeyance to allow for Dr. Jeffrey McKee ‘to conduct a psychosexual evaluation of Mr. Turner before we have that determination of whether he would have to register as a sex offender.'”
Young refused the continuance request to allow for the evaluation by Dr. McKee and at the conclusion of the hearing, revoked Turner’s probation by activating his YOA sentence and ordering Turner to register as a sex offender, maintaining he had no “leeway” in the matter.
Turner’s attorneys argue because the state “failed to show good cause existed to place appellant (Turner) on the sex offender registry” the appellate court should hold judge Dennis abused his discretion by ordering him to register and reverse his decision.
Stay tuned to FITSNews for coverage of the oral arguments presented tomorrow and any subsequent rulings by the court.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
Jenn Wood is FITSNews’ incomparable research director. She’s also the producer of the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts and leading expert on all things Murdaugh/ South Carolina justice. A former private investigator with a criminal justice degree, evildoers beware, Jenn Wood is far from your average journalist! A deep dive researcher with a passion for truth and a heart for victims, this mom of two is pretty much a superhero in FITSNews country. Did we mention she’s married to a rocket scientist? (Lucky guy!) Got a story idea or a tip for Jenn? Email her at jenn@fitsnews.com.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
2 comments
They need to lock this POS away for good and throw away the key.
This douchebag needs the hammer dropped on him. He is probably a severe alcoholic, and about two to three years in jail would likely get him sober and MAYBE back on the right path of life. But I want to push back on one thing: I don’t know Brad Hutto from Adam’s housecat, but he DID NOT “slut shame” anybody; I read that embedded link, and the originating story. People have cast around that statement/term in ways beyond its original usage. “Slut shaming” was a tactic of calling out all the OTHER sexual encounters that a woman has had with OTHER men occuring prior to and subsequent to the incident in question, so as to create the inference that the girl is loose and doesn’t really say no to anybody else, and therefore she consented in the incident in question. Hutto DID NOT do that (at least none of the article indicate that) , he questioned one of the accusing girls about her actions AT THAT INCIDENT in question – not a bunch of other incidents with other people- and pointed out that her conduct at that time, with his client, and the fact that she never said or did anything contemporaneous to that event that would have indicated that it was not consensual. That approach is completely above-board, fair game, and it reflects a fact of life: sometimes people get a little drunk and hook up/mess around/ and even go all the way and then later regret it, or decide that they really dislike the other person and therefor try to cry rape. That type of conduct was not at all uncommon by white women who secretly had sex with black men in the South decades and generations ago and then became pregnant or were discovered. And some innocent black men died or went to jail for life for it. There wasn’t some switch that flipped in the 1990s and all women just stopped doing that, and a good lawyer should not shrink away from those uncomfortable topics in the defense of their client – it would be malpractice to do so if there was reasonable evidence to support the argument. HUTTO WAS DOING HIS JOB, AND WAS NOT “SLUT-SHAMING.” FITS FRANKLY OWES HIM A PUBLIC APOLOGY.