Introduction to Stand Your Ground Laws
In recent years, self-defense laws have been at the forefront of national conversation due to highly publicized cases and the political debates they stir. The self-defense law that is often in the spotlight is known as "stand your ground." Essentially, stand your ground laws allow a person to defend themselves with force, even when that force results in someone’s death, without facing criminal charges for their action. South Carolina joined the growing numbers of states that have passed these laws in 2006, enacting S.C. Code § 16-11-440, the "South Carolina Protection of Persons and Property Act." South Carolina’s version, like most stand your ground laws, defines the circumstances when individuals may stand their ground in the face of an aggressor with the following language: (A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or herself when: (1) the person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of illegally and forcibly entering, or had illegally and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; or (2) the person against whom defensive force was used was removing or attempting to remove another against that person’s will from a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. (B) A person who is attacked in any place in this State where the person has the right to be is not required to retreat. (C) A person who uses or threatens to use defensive force as permitted by this section does not have a duty to retreat and has a right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force anywhere he or she has a right to be, including in his or her home and in his or her vehicle…" South Carolina law requires that in order to plead a defense of self-defense, the accused must prove that he/she: This seems as clear cut as self-defense can be, but the application of this law is different in each state . Different interpretations and applications have been adopted in several states across the country. As of 2018, there are 36 states across the country that have enacted some form of "stand your ground" law. Here are a few examples of "stand your ground" laws from around the country: In Alabama, as per Ala. Code § 13A-3-23(b), "A person may use physical force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious physical injury only if the person reasonably believes the conduct is necessary to avoid imminent physical harm…" Similar to South Carolina law, the law in Maryland reads, "A person may not intentionally use deadly physical force against another unless the person reasonably believes that the deadly physical force is necessary to protect against the other’s imminent unlawful entry or unlawful act," (MD Code, Criminal Law § 3-404(b)). In North Carolina, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-51.2 reads, "A person is justified in using deadly physical force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (a) The person is in a place where the person may lawfully be; and (b) The person reasonably believes the person is not engaged in illegal activity and has a right to be in that place; and (c) The person reasonably believes there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the person or a minor child residing in the person’s household." As you can see, while all of these laws address similar issues, interpretations vary wildly around the country. This has resulted in a patchwork of self-defense jurisprudence, which is confusing at best.
An Overview of the Stand Your Ground Law in South Carolina
South Carolina does not have a true stand your ground law, but it does have what is termed as a Castle Doctrine law. This law allows a person to meet force with force, including deadly force, without any duty to retreat. However, it is only applicable in one’s own home, motor vehicle, and place of business. The Florida style "Stand your Ground" law that has garnered national headlines cannot, by its own terms, apply to South Carolina.
South Carolina adopted the Castle Doctrine in 2006. The law allows the use of deadly force by a person who has not engaged in unlawful activity and is either in their dwelling, residence, or a conveyance, or in any other place where he has a right to be, to meet force with deadly force unless the person against whom the force is used is in the process of entering or has entered the dwelling, residence, or conveyance unlawfully and with force, or has a right to be there because they are a police officer, etc.
The law does not extend the protection of the Castle Doctrine to use of deadly force in any other place (i.e. outside the home, residence, or conveyance). What that law says is that if deadly force is used anywhere other than in the home, residence, or conveyance then there is a presumption that the use of force was reasonable (meaning self-defense). That means basically that the jury will be told that the use of deadly force by one who was not engaged in an unlawful act is presumed to be justifiable self-defense as long as the person using the force was not engaged in violence or provocation, and that the person they shot did not enter the premises by using physical aggression.
Where there is no "stand your ground" in South Carolina is that even though South Carolina has extended the Castle Doctrine to motor vehicles and places of business, it does not allow persons who are in a public place to stand their ground if they come under attack.
In other words, South Carolina does, in fact, have the flip side of "Stand Your Ground." The law says that people cannot begin acts of violence, and when their actions are stopped using deadly force, they cannot claim self-defense in order to get away with their own unlawful actions. It is a good law.
Applying the Law to Self-Defense Scenarios
Like all states with Stand Your Ground laws, South Carolina’s law is not absolute. The law is applied on a case-by-case basis and in a way that is consistent with other forms of legal precedent.
"Stand Your Ground" is commonly thought to mean that you can shoot a person regardless of the threat they pose to you. This is a misnomer. While the law does not require you to retreat from an attack before you shoot in self defense, the law still requires there to be a real or perceived threat. As the South Carolina Supreme Court has stated, self-defense instructions must be limited to those instances when the necessity of self defense is apparent. It is not sufficient for the defendant to say he or she did not do anything wrong, there was nothing he/she could have done, or there was nothing he/she could have done to avoid the confrontation with the decedent.
In the case of State v. Fair, the defendant was indicted for murder after fatally shooting the decedent during a confrontation between the defendant, the decedent, and another man. Fair claimed he heard the words "shoot the nigger" uttered by his attackers before shooting his gun into their vehicle. At trial, the defendant and an independent witness testified to the defendant’s belief that the decedent was attempting to kill him. The defendant’s expert testified that a .38 caliber bullet would penetrate the windshield of a car, that it would be difficult to determine the distance from the firearm to the point of impact, that the defendant’s gun had to be within two feet to three feet from the decedent’s car window, and that the gun and the decedent’s protruding arm were of equal height. The survival of this charge required the provision of a self-defense charge.
Although the Court in State v. Fair does not provide information as to what the evidence at trial showed, the Court concluded that a jury issue was created. Instruction on the law of self-defense is complete when "there is evidence tending to establish the defense," which must be given for the defendant even if the defense is not corroborated. In State v. Fair, because the defendant’s testimony as to the decedent’s threats was adopted by the objective witness and supported by scientific evidence, the Court found that the trial court erred in not giving the self defense charge.
While this may appear to be a favorable ruling for the defendant, it is not likely that it will help him during re-trial, on the basis of the concept of curative instructions. After the state’s prosecutor realized the fundamental error that occurred by not providing the self-defense charge, the solicitor requested a curative instruction, which was denied. The instruction that the trial court refused to give was this: "Ladies and gentlemen, at request of the defendant, I charged you on the law of self-defense. I instruct you that self defense is no defense for the intentional killing of another person by the use of a deadly weapon unless the defendant had good reason to believe at the time of the act that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury at the hands of the deceased and had no avenue of retreat open to him."
Further, the Court also finds in State v. Fair that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s request for a jury instruction on "justifiable or excusable Homicide. The defendant’s reliance on State v. King was misplaced, as the defendant and the victim were in close proximity when the fatal shot occurred.
In conclusion, the standard applied to the self-defense claim in Fair appears to be a low one; however, the defendant may not win at re-trial on the basis of this type of evidence.
Legal Consequences and Controversies
Critics argue that "Stand Your Ground" laws promote a "shoot first, think later" mentality and that they can exacerbate problems related to racial bias and vigilantism in self-defense claims. Some opponents have pointed to a 2005 study, which found that Stand Your Ground laws caused an increase in homicides, particularly among black Americans who shot white victims.
The study found that in states which had adopted a Stand Your Ground law, black perpetrators of homicide were substantially (more than 400%) more likely to kill unarmed white victims than in states without such laws.
There is a concern that such laws may cause unknown, unprovoked confrontations to escalate, particularly in public areas. Critics emphasize that Stand Your Ground laws may worsen public safety rather than improving it.
Proponents of "Stand Your Ground" laws, however, cite the specific language of the South Carolina law which makes it clear that one cannot use deadly force to retaliate for a non-deadly attack. Additionally, supporters state that Stand Your Ground is a response to the pervasively poor protection granted to lawful self-defense in common law, evidenced by cases where individuals who have threatened or attacked others were found not guilty of any crime.
In 2012, 307,000 Self-Defense cases went to trial in the United States, 36% of which involved a conviction based on the foundation that one used excessive force, in violation of current common law.
In the context of South Carolina, the intent behind the law was clearly stated: To allow individuals the ability to defend themselves and their family , without fear of prosecution.
Nevertheless, the law does allow for wrongful conviction and punishment for one using deadly force when he or she would have had the legal right to self-defense at the moment he/she exerted the force. South Carolina removed the so-called "duty to retreat" from its law, thus permitting individuals to assert a defense of justified self-defense in any location.
Proponents of Stand Your Ground, including some South Carolina legislators, say that the law merely updates the common law of self-defense. Critics argue that the law will over broaden the legal definition of justified self-defense.
The suitability of a law, including a Stand Your Ground law, is subject to the imposed precedential barriers of appellate review. A law that provides a right as a defense does not mean that every assertion of that right will succeed, as the law does not provide for an outright immunity from arrest and prosecution, rather a defense against such. The South Carolina Stand Your Ground law only removes the duty to retreat if you can safely do so, and it does not preclude a finding of guilt in the use of excessive force.
"Stand Your Ground" laws remain one of the most controversial weapons issues in the nation today. Proponents point to a more just criminal justice system which helps to protect those who are lawfully defending themselves and their families. Opponents point to the creation of a "shoot first, think later" mentality, and one that may be negatively impacted by racial bias and unjust vigilantism.
Recent Developments and Judicial Opinions
Over the last several years, the Stand Your Ground law has been tested in a number of high-profile South Carolina cases. In 2015, the Supreme Court of South Carolina held in WINDHAM v. State of South Carolina that "the doctrine of immunity from prosecution applies to both criminal and civil cases. Because immunity from prosecution is a substantive defense under the stand your ground statute, immunity must be recognized as a substantive defense and not merely a procedural hurdle rule of evidence." The Court further stated "That is, if there are undisputed facts that demonstrate immunity from prosecution, there is no case or controversy for the trial courts to resolve, but only questions of law for the courts to decide." On August 2, 2016, the Supreme Court of South Carolina answered one of the remaining questions left unanswered at the conclusion of the Windham case. Justice Kittredge wrote the unanimous majority opinion in WINDHAM v. State of South Carolina. In this case, the supreme court found that a person charged with an offense [under the stand your ground law] cannot use the self-defense statute [self-defense law] to avoid the statute of limitations. Even if the circumstances justify the use of force, it does not necessarily follow that defendant may successfully invoke the self defense statute [SD-3 Defense], absent "good cause" for the delay. And while the Supreme Court may have answered that question, there are still important unanswered questions remaining. As they wind through the South Carolina courts, more answers to this type of question will help clarify the South Carolina Stand Your Ground law.
Conclusion: Navigating Stand Your Ground in SC
In this article, we discussed the impact of the Castle Doctrine, self-defense laws, and when an individual can be charged with a crime. We also discussed how the Stand Your Ground law affects gun ownership in South Carolina and the gray areas that often leave civilians responsible for deadly altercations . In short: While understanding the technical aspects of these laws are important, if you find yourself involved in a confrontation – whether as an innocent bystander or suspect in an altercation – there are several key points to remember: Legal issues are complex, and tensions are high in the world today. If you are involved in a self-defense or Stand Your Ground case, contact experienced legal counsel who can advise you every step of the way.