Getting to Know the Laws of Self Defense in South Carolina

A Primer on the Laws of Self Defense in South Carolina

Under South Carolina law, the principle of self-defense is firmly rooted in the past. The right to take up arms when threatened has existed for centuries and is recognized in many cultures, including our own. The concept of this self-help is enshrined in SC law as essentially a "stand your ground law"—meaning that you have a right to defend yourself anywhere you may be if necessary. What it does not mean is that you can simply attack anyone you see fit with no consequences.
S.C. Code § 16-11-410 provides, in substantive part, that a person is justified in using deadly physical force against another person only in defense of himself or herself or another against the commission of a violent crime, as defined by S.C. Code § 16-1-60, that threatens him or another with imminent peril of death or seriously bodily injury. Such use of deadly physical force is justified for all persons, not just the persons directly threatened with harm. SC Code 16-11-440 further provides that a person is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to prevent a violent crime when he is in a place where he has a right to be present and the actor believed his home or dwelling was being entered by another unlawfully. Further , SC Code 16-11-410 contemplates that a person may have a duty to retreat from a threat if the person knows the place where the person is "is safe." The SC Code provision, however, does contemplate that a person has no duty to retreat his or her home. But, if the actor’s home is a place that a person "has a right to be," there may be at least a scintilla of argument to be made that, considering the totality of the circumstances in each and every case, a duty to retreat exists in these SC Code-protected locations.
The case law interpreting SC Code §§ 16-11-410 and 440 is still growing—and there are many nuances and details to fit into the general principles outlined above. One thing is clear, however: if you are contemplating using violence against someone else to protect yourself or someone else, you need to know what the law is and how it applies to your case. The failure to do so could result in a murder charge – or, at the very least, charges of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature.

South Carolina’s Stand Your Ground Law

South Carolina’s Stand Your Ground law applies in situations where an individual feels threatened by the actions of another party. According to the law, a person does not have to try to retreat or escape from that threat before using reasonable force. The law is limited, however. First, it applies only to reasonable force used to prevent injury or death. It does not apply to lawfully owned weapons that are used as aggressive tools. Secondly, South Carolina typically deems a person as innocent if they were reasonably in fear for suspicion that they may be harmed. If someone is just angry with someone and shoots them out of spite, the law will not apply to the situation to protect them from prosecution. In addition, nothing in Stand Your Ground laws prevents a civil lawsuit against a person for personal injury should they cause damage.

The Castle Doctrine in South Carolina

The "Castle Doctrine" basically, is the legal doctrine that provides for a homeowner the right to defend his/her home from intruders and especially during the nighttime hours when there is no time to meet the duty to retreat.
In South Carolina, the Castle Doctrine includes your house, dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle or place of business or employment. You can use deadly force when someone is forcibly entering your dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle or place of business or employment. The law further provides that when a person using a legal firearm makes a lawful "castle doctrine" claim, he or she would have the right to receive the protection of the S.C. Stand Your Ground law.
The Castle Doctrine requires proof by the State in the prosecution of a criminal case or charging instrument that the accused was justified in using deadly force. These are affirmative defenses to a criminal offense. The law further provides that the S.C. "Stand Your Ground" law would be the law of the State of South Carolina whether you are using a concealed weapons permit or not.
The Castle Doctrine should not be confused with the normal Use of Force Laws applicable in the State of South Carolina. The normal Use of Force Laws in South Carolina do not have the lengthy conditions and requirements as the Castle Doctrine and provide for certain protections from civil claims (ie. Non-negligent behavior).
The law further provides that when a person using a legal firearm makes a lawful "castle doctrine" claim, he or she would have the right to receive the protection of the S.C. Stand Your Ground law.
Under South Carolina law, there is no duty to retreat in your home or workplace (unless you are the initial aggressor). The law provides a person with the ability to "stand his or her ground" and meet force with force (including lethal force) to stop an attack being made against him or her or kill him or her by another person (outside of his or her house).
The law also provides for immunity from suit in certain circumstances; which come into play only if the case has been filed in court and the accused files a motion to dismiss the case based on "Stand Your Ground" or "Castle Doctrine" defenses.
If a person employs the Stand Your Ground Law in South Carolina, the law further provides that the Stand Your Ground law supersedes the Castor doctrine. (ie. Castle doctrine having no application, immunity or protection once a person files a civil action for damages).
The law does not apply to claims of negligent conduct; claims based on "purely accidental" conduct; causes of action under South Carolina tort law; or when the person claiming immunity from the protection is the initial aggressor.
In order to invoke immunity from suit, the person claiming immunity must file a pre-trial motion for immunity. The statute further provides that the immunity must be decided by a judge and not a jury (by preponderance of the evidence). The judge hearing the motion has the right to hear evidence (where applicable) and make a ruling on the motion (the statute provides few guidelines and no precedent).
In the event that the motion for immunity is denied (a certificate that there is a right to appeal is available), the judge may decide the key factual issue of whether the claim of immunity should be decided by a jury (if settled) or tried to a jury (if a civil jury trial is warranted).
The immunity from suit may also be invoked against any liability for a civil claim involving negligence. However, it should be noted that there are several new limitations for immunity from law suits involving negligence and immunity from suit for claims of criminal conduct; the law should be reviewed to determine the limits and protections available to the accused.

Requirements and Restrictions

In addition to obligating a Defendant to demonstrate the threat he or she faces is real and imminent, South Carolina self defense law imposes limitations on the imminence of such threats. A person cannot, under the law of South Carolina, make the decision to use deadly force against another person without first attempting to retreat. South Carolina recognizes two exceptions to this obligation: Felony violence and unlawful entry into a dwelling.
Even a person whom the law thinks is legally obligated to retreat before taking action is not required to retreat in all cases. South Carolina recognizes that it may be impossible for some people to retreat, and therefore recognizes at least a presumption that retreat is unnecessary in certain situations. This is true so long as there is no safe place to which to retreat.
The South Carolina Supreme Court recognized that there are limits to the "no retreat" rule, since it may be nearly impossible for a person who is ambushed to have a place to go to. In fact, the Court has held that "the failure to retreat only [becomes] an issue [at trial] where the defendant did not act within the confines of [his or her] home." So, if you are attacked and face an imminent threat of death in a public place, such as at work, or in a restaurant, and you choose to exercise your right to use deadly force, harmful or fatal acts committed by a defendant who has no place else to protect himself cannot be said to hold great weight with the jury, since persons have a heightened duty to try to retreat when faced with violent resolution of any kind at a place where they could safely retreat to avoid the danger.

Potential Legal Ramifications from Self Defense Claims

The authority for a person to use force in self defense is contained in South Carolina Code Section 16-11-440 and provides that a person may use deadly force in self defense if he has a reasonable belief that the use of such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious harm. There are also provisions contained in S.C. Code 16-11-460 regarding the presumption that a person is entitled to the use of force in a dwelling and a presumption that a person is a trespasser when he enters a dwelling without permission.
The law also provides that if the justifiable use of force is contested by the prosecution and the evidence is submitted in the form of testimony (as opposed to in the form of an affidavit or some other form of documentary evidence) the burden of proof to rebut the presumption is upon the prosecution. If the evidence submitted by the prosecution consists entirely of documentary evidence , affidavits, and summaries including testimony, then the burden of proof is upon the defendant to rebut the presumption. In simple terms, whether the burden of proof lies with the defendant or the State depends on whether or not the matter is contested by testimony at trial or through written evidence.
If the defendant raises self defense in his defense of criminal charges brought against him, he then carries the initial burden of producing evidence to support the justification of his actions under the law. It is only after the defendant has met this burden that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not justified in using deadly force in self defense. This is a tough burden for the prosecution to meet.

Reminders of Noteworthy South Carolina Self Defense Cases

In addition to the judicial opinions issued by South Carolina’s appellate courts, appeals from a criminal case to the Supreme Court of South Carolina or the South Carolina Court of Appeals also can result in published opinions that can be found and used in later cases as precedent. Some of these cases have gone into great detail explaining South Carolina’s laws on self-defense, including those that were already discussed in Chapter 7 of this book.
One example is State v. Cazayoux, 156 S.C. 155, 153 S.E. 721 (1930), a South Carolina Supreme Court decision in which the justices considered whether a person who felt that he must shoot a dog to avoid harm to himself and others must first empty the dog’s mouth of its contents. The defendant in that case claimed that a vicious dog came onto his property and, fearing for his safety and the safety of children nearby, he shot the dog. The question facing the State Supreme Court was whether a person could use deadly force to protect himself from such a situation.
The Court reviewed prior decisions in various jurisdictions around the country. From those cases, the Supreme Court reasoned that there may be particular circumstances when the threat posed by a domesticated animal is sufficient to justify the use of deadly force against it, and that self-defense laws necessarily extend to protect a person from other forms of attack, including those posed by domesticated animals.
Almost 20 years later, the Court ruled again on a self-defense issue in State v. Williams, 233 S.C. 43, 102 S.E.2d 855 (1958). In Williams, the defendant was convicted of murder after shooting and killing his wife’s brother. The defendant admitted to shooting the brother but claimed that he did so because the victim had attacked him with a knife and, therefore, used deadly force against the victim in self-defense.
The Supreme Court reversed and overturned the man’s conviction after determining that the trial court should have allowed the defendant to present evidence to support his self-defense argument. In reaching this conclusion, the Court set out certain conditions that must be met before deadly force is perceived as reasonable. Those conditions may be summarized as follows:
Finally, in an 1871 case, State v. Day, 12 Rich. 181 (1871), the Appeal Court of South Carolina confirmed the rule that a person facing a perceived threat of death or serious injury can use deadly force to defend himself. In that case, the defendant had been stabbed in the arm by the decedent. The defendant claimed that the decedent then attacked him again, raised his knife and threatened to kill him, and so the defendant shot the decedent in self-defense. The trial court instructed the jury to decide the case based on the perceived threat from the decedent. The jury found the defendant not guilty.
Although the lower trial court’s jury instructions did not say that the defendant had to perceive a threat of death or serious injury in order to defend himself, the trial court’s direction that the jury determine whether the evidence supported the specific perception alleged by the defendant meant that the defendant had to prove to the jury that he had a reasonable belief that the allegedly aggressive actions directed toward him were sufficiently serious to justify the killing of his adversary in self-defense. The Appeal Court found no error in the lower court’s approach.

Advice on Legal Matters Related to Self Defense

If you are faced with a situation where you are forced to use self defensive action, one of the most important things you can do is seek legal advice as soon as possible. You need someone looking out for you who knows the law. It is commonly said that you are innocent until proven guilty. While this is true, it takes a lot for most people to go from hearing a quick sound byte on the news to knowing the whole story behind it. Oftentimes its easy for a viewing public to make a snap judgement about someone or something with very little facts. For example, if you say you were forced to shoot someone in self-defense, and there is video of you shooting someone, it doesn’t go over well. This may be both sides’ faults. It’s possible you were shot at and pulled out a pistol and returned fire. But if you look calm and deliberate on video shooting someone trying to do serious bodily harm to you , it is not going to be taken well.
You need someone immediately to investigate the situation. Someone to interview witnesses, obtain video surveillance, consult an expert, etc. You don’t want to be proven guilty when it is done and over with. You have to get the best possible result with the best possible defense.
Your attorney should also give advice on the legal issues involved. If it was self-defense there are going to be no charges. If it was in defense of another it does happen that way sometimes. Or did they commit a robbery and you were justified to assist the victim in his defense. Or did some guy give you the whole "4 degree black belt" speech and you didn’t want to engage him. It’s very important to discuss with an experienced lawyer the issues as he or she sees it. That person can then help you understand what you will need to do going forward.