|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
South Carolina’s second-highest court has granted convicted murderer Zachary David Hughes’ request to temporarily halt his appeal and send his case back to the trial court, clearing the way for a Greenville County judge to consider whether Hughes is entitled to a new trial based on what his attorneys characterize as after-discovered evidence.
The two-page order (.pdf), issued on Tuesday (July 21, 2026) by the Palmetto State’s court of appeals, marks a significant procedural victory for Hughes — though not yet a victory on the merits of his claims.
Rather than immediately deciding whether Hughes’ murder conviction should stand, the appellate court agreed that the trial court should first determine whether evidence arising from Bradly Post’s March 2026 guilty plea satisfies South Carolina’s stringent legal standard for granting a new trial based on evidence discovered after conviction.
The ruling follows a motion Hughes filed last month asking the appeals court to suspend appellate proceedings while he pursued a new trial in Greenville County. Prosecutors opposed the request, arguing such a remand would be “futile and duplicative” of issues already raised on appeal. The appellate court disagreed.
If all of this sounds familiar, it should. It’s the same process accused killer Alex Murdaugh went through three years ago in his ultimately successful bid to get his convictions reversed.
***
A CASE GROWN MORE COMPLICATED
The order represents the latest twist in one of South Carolina’s most closely watched murder cases.
Hughes is serving a life sentence without parole for the October 2021 killing of 41-year-old Christina Parcell, who was found brutally stabbed inside a Greer, S.C. home owned by her sister. Prosecutors alleged Hughes murdered Parcell after becoming involved with John Mello, the father of Parcell’s young daughter, amid a contentious custody dispute.
Hughes never denied killing Parcell. Instead, throughout the investigation and at trial, he maintained he believed Parcell’s daughter was being sexually abused and acted to protect the child.
That defense collided with another criminal investigation that unfolded alongside the homicide case.
Electronic devices seized during the murder investigation ultimately led investigators to file child sexual abuse material (CSAM) charges against Parcell’s fiancé, Bradly Post, who was also one of the state’s principal witnesses against Hughes. Throughout Hughes’ prosecution, his attorneys argued evidence recovered during that investigation was central to explaining Hughes’ state of mind. Prosecutors successfully argued much of that evidence was speculative, unsupported or irrelevant, and Greenville County Circuit Court judge Patrick C. Fant III excluded it from the jury’s consideration.
Hughes was convicted in February 2025.
Then, thirteen months later, Post pleaded guilty.
During that plea hearing, Assistant Attorney General Camille Guthrie publicly described investigators recovering hundreds of images and videos depicting Parcell and her daughter posing nude and in lingerie, adding that in many of the videos Parcell appeared to set up the camera herself. Post agreed under oath that the State’s factual summary of the case was “substantially true and correct.”
Those admissions became the centerpiece of Hughes’ latest legal strategy.
***
RELATED | ‘Rose Petal Murder’ Appeal
***
THE DEFENSE’S ARGUMENT
Last month, Hughes’ attorneys argued the State fundamentally changed its position after securing his conviction.
According to the defense, prosecutors repeatedly told Judge Fant before and during Hughes’ trial that allegations involving Parcell’s participation in creating child sexual abuse material were unsupported and incapable of being proven.
The defense contends the factual basis prosecutors later presented during Post’s guilty plea cannot be reconciled with those earlier representations.
In their motion, Hughes’ attorneys argued there were only two possible explanations: either prosecutors discovered new evidence after Hughes’ trial validating the defense’s position, or they knowingly misrepresented the evidence while persuading Judge Fant to exclude it from the jury.
Based on that argument, Hughes asked the appellate court to halt his appeal so the trial court could consider a motion for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence.
***
APPELLATE COURT AGREES—FOR NOW
In Tuesday’s order, the appeals court judge stopped short of expressing any opinion on the merits of Hughes’ allegations.
Instead, the panel concluded the proper course was to return the case to the circuit court to determine whether Hughes satisfies South Carolina’s five-part test for obtaining a new trial based on after-discovered evidence. That standard requires Hughes to show, among other things, that the evidence was discovered after trial, could not have been found earlier through due diligence, is material to the case, and would probably change the outcome if a new trial were granted.
The Court of Appeals also ordered Hughes to notify the circuit court of the remand within ten days and to provide written status updates every thirty days while the matter remains pending. Once the circuit court rules, Hughes must provide that written order to the appellate court within ten days or risk dismissal of his appeal.
***
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The appellate ruling does not grant Hughes a new trial. Instead, it opened the door for what could become the most consequential hearing in the case since his conviction.
A circuit court judge must now decide whether the evidence Hughes relies upon—principally the factual admissions made during Post’s guilty plea—qualifies as after-discovered evidence under South Carolina law and, if so, whether it is significant enough that it would probably have changed the outcome of Hughes’ murder trial.
Only after that question is answered will the Court of Appeals determine how Hughes’ appeal proceeds.
For now, what began as a conventional appeal challenging evidentiary rulings has evolved into something much broader: a judicial examination of whether prosecutors’ later factual admissions are consistent with the arguments they successfully used to keep similar evidence from the jury that convicted Hughes. That question now returns to the very judge whose evidentiary rulings lie at the center of the dispute.
***
THE ORDER
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
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.
