South Carolina Use of Force and Self-Defense Laws

Use of Force Laws in South Carolina

Self-Defense (Common Law Elements)

South Carolina recognizes the right of self-defense. Once raised by the defendant, the prosecution must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 377 S.E.2d 328 (1989).

The elements of self-defense in South Carolina, as set forth in State v. Fuller, are:

1. Without fault: The defendant must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;
2. Actual belief of imminent danger: The defendant must actually believe he is in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury, or actually was in such danger;
3. Reasonable person standard: If the defendant believed he was in such danger, a reasonable or prudent person of ordinary firmness and courage would have believed himself to be in such danger; if the defendant actually was in such danger, the circumstances were such as would warrant a person of ordinary prudence, firmness, and courage to strike the fatal blow in order to save himself from serious bodily harm or losing his own life;
4. No other probable means of avoidance: The defendant had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in the particular instance.

Without Fault in Bringing on the Difficulty

• A person cannot provoke a confrontation and then claim self-defense. State v. Jackson, 227 S.C. 271, 87 S.E.2d 681 (1955).
• Mutual combat disqualifies a person from claiming self-defense unless, before the homicide, the person withdraws and endeavors in good faith to decline further conflict, and makes that fact known to the adversary by word or act. State v. Graham, 260 S.C. 449, 196 S.E.2d 495 (1973).
• Use of opprobrious language that a reasonable person would expect to bring on a physical encounter can constitute fault in bringing on the difficulty. State v. Rowell, 75 S.C. 494, 56 S.E. 23 (1906).
• Even if the defendant was initially provocative, a clear withdrawal communicated to the adversary can restore the right of self-defense. State v. Hendrix, 270 S.C. 653, 244 S.E.2d 503 (1978).

Duty to Retreat

South Carolina law recognizes a general duty to retreat before using deadly force, but with significant exceptions:

No duty to retreat in the following situations:

1. When attacked on one's own premises. State v. Merriman, 287 S.C. 74, 337 S.E.2d 218 (1985); State v. Sales, 285 S.C. 113, 328 S.E.2d 619 (1985).
2. Within the home's curtilage. State v. Jackson, 227 S.C. 271.
3. Beyond the curtilage of one's home. State v. Quick, 138 S.C. 147, 135 S.E. 800 (1926).
4. In one's place of business, even if the aggressor also has a right to be there. State v. Kennedy, 143 S.C. 318, 141 S.E. 559 (1928).
5. As a guest in the home of another (unless required to leave by the householder). State v. Osborne, 202 S.C. 463, 25 S.E.2d 492 (1942).
6. A lawful guest attacked in the owner's home has no duty to retreat where the attacker is an intruder. State v. Osborne, 202 S.C. 473, 25 S.E.2d 561 (1943).
7. When attacked in a person's club room. State v. Marlowe, 120 S.C. 205, 112 S.E. 921 (1921).
8. Where both parties own the premises, neither has the duty to retreat where the other is the aggressor. State v. Gibbs, 113 S.C. 256, 102 S.E. 333 (1920).
9. Where both live in the same home, neither has the duty to retreat if the other is the aggressor. State v. Grantham, 224 S.C. 41, 77 S.E.2d 291 (1953).
10. Where both are guests in the same home, neither has the duty to retreat if the other is the aggressor. State v. Smith, 226 S.C. 418, 85 S.E.2d 409 (1955).
11. Where both are fellow workers on the same job site. State v. Gordon, 128 S.C. 422, 122 S.E. 501 (1924).
12. If retreating would apparently increase the danger. State v. McGee, 185 S.C. 184, 193 S.E. 303 (1937).

Duty to retreat applies:

• Before using deadly force on a public street or highway, even when in one's own automobile. State v. McGee, supra.
• In a store where the public is invited. State v. Peeples, 126 S.C. 422, 120 S.E. 361 (1923).
• A lawful guest has a duty to retreat when the attacker is the homeowner. State v. Chambers, 310 S.C. 43, 425 S.E.2d 45 (Ct. App. 1992).

Note on non-deadly force: The duty to retreat may not be required where the defendant uses non-deadly force. State v. Williams, 459 S.E.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1995) (dicta).

Proportionality of Response

The response in self-defense must be proportional to the threat. State v. Wood, 1 S.C.L. 351 (1794) — the Court emphasized that a small blow does not justify an enormous beating.

Imperfect Self-Defense

South Carolina does not recognize "imperfect self-defense." An actual but unreasonable belief that one was in imminent danger of bodily harm is not a defense that reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter. The defendant's actual belief of imminent danger must be such that a reasonable prudent person of ordinary firmness and courage would have entertained the same belief. State v. Finley, 277 S.C. 548, 290 S.E.2d 808 (1982).

Defense of Others

South Carolina recognizes the right to defend others, including any relative, friend, or bystander. State v. Hays, 121 S.C. 163, 113 S.E. 362 (1922).

Key principles:

• South Carolina follows the "alter ego" rule: A person who intervenes on behalf of another "stands in the shoes" of the person being defended. If the person being defended had the right to use force in self-defense, the intervenor shares that right. If the person being defended had no right to use force, the intervenor assumes the same liability. State v. Cook, 78 S.C. 253, 59 S.E. 862 (1907).
• The same principles of retreat and withdrawal apply as if the individual were acting in self-defense rather than on behalf of someone else.
• If the person being assisted had no duty to retreat (e.g., on their own premises), the intervenor also has no duty to retreat. State v. Sales, 285 S.C. 113, 328 S.E.2d 619 (1985).
• The right to use deadly force in defense of others requires that the danger of murder or serious bodily harm is imminent, there was no other reasonable means of escape for the person assailed, and both the person assailed and the person coming to their defense were without legal fault in bringing on the difficulty. State v. Hays, supra.

Concealed Carry and Use of Force

Pursuant to the Law Abiding Citizens Self Defense Act of 1996 (S.C. Code § 23-31-215), the issuance of a concealed weapons permit does not expand, diminish, or alter the existing substantive law relative to self-defense, defense of property, or the propriety of a private citizen's use of deadly force. The Act preserves existing use-of-force law as it existed prior to the Act's effective date.

Section 23-31-215(R) specifically provides that no provision of the Act shall expand, diminish, or alter the duty of care owed by the owner or person in legal possession of real property for injury or death caused by the use or misuse of a concealable weapon by a third party.