Singletary v. Shuler
| Decision Date | 02 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | Opinion No. 5823,Appellate Case No. 2018-001386 |
| Citation | 861 S.E.2d 591,433 S.C. 600 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Stacy SINGLETARY, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Sheldon Singletary, Respondent, v. Kelvin SHULER, Appellant. |
Eduardo Kelvin Curry, of The Curry Law Firm LLC, of North Charleston, for Appellant.
Thaddeus James Doughty, of Thad James Doughty, Attorney at Law, of North Charleston, for Respondent.
In this civil matter, Kevin Shuler appeals a judgment granted against him in a wrongful death and survival action. Specifically, Shuler appeals the master-in-equity's order (1) finding he was not entitled to self-defense immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act1 (the Act); (2) finding the respondent presented evidence to support a finding of wrongful death; and (3) finding the respondent presented evidence of conscious pain and suffering to support a survival action. We affirm.
On April 19, 2012, at approximately 9:30 A.M. , Shuler walked to the end of his driveway to check his mail. Sheldon Singletary (Decedent) pulled up in his car, and the two discussed a bachelor party Shuler attended the night before. Decedent then called several people, inviting them to come to Shuler's home. Shuler cooked breakfast for the people that came, and several of the guests consumed alcohol throughout the morning and into the afternoon. After breakfast, the male attendees decided to continue cooking and to have a cookout.
As the day progressed, Shuler and Decedent began consuming alcohol, resulting in a fight in Shuler's kitchen. Sharanika Morris, an eye-witness, testified that Shuler initiated the altercation by placing his hands in Decedent's face and slapping him. Initially, Morris thought the men were playing, but it became serious when a verbal altercation ensued and Shuler continued to touch Decedent. Morris testified that Decedent responded by slapping Shuler in the face, and the two men began to fight. Morris testified that after the fight was broken up, Shuler found a knife on the kitchen counter and threw it at Decedent. Morris asserted that Shuler did not tell the guests to leave, but everyone began to exit Shuler's home. As Morris left through the front door, Decedent was on Shuler's porch, and he asked her to go back into the house to get his jacket with his bail bondsman badge. Morris entered Shuler's home through a side door and saw Shuler exiting the home with a .45 caliber handgun. Morris stated she followed Shuler as he approached the front of his home with the handgun yelling "You see what you did to my face?" and "I should kill you." She stated Shuler walked to the porch and shot Decedent in the abdomen, and Decedent fell from the porch into the yard, landing on his back. She also testified that Decedent exclaimed "help me" several times before his eyes began rolling to the back of his head and he quit moving.
Conversely, Shuler testified that he and Decedent were talking prior to their altercation and that he was unaware of any argument between them. Shuler claimed Decedent initiated the altercation by shoving him, and when Shuler shoved back, Decedent punched him in the right eye, causing it to bleed. Shuler claimed he became delirious and fell to the ground. Shuler said Decedent kicked him several times in the ribs and in the face while he was on the ground, fracturing his right eye orbital, two ribs, and breaking his nose.2 Shuler claimed he saw a knife in the kitchen, grabbed it, and began yelling for the crowd to leave his home. According to Shuler, no one left, and Decedent told him to put the knife down or else he would beat him further. Shuler stated that Decedent left his home after the altercation ended but he did not know where he went and was nervous Decedent would return to further harm him. Shuler went into his bedroom to retrieve his handgun, and as he was exiting the side door of his house, another guest told him to put the gun away and to calm down.3 Shuler testified that as he walked towards the front of his house with the guest, he saw someone jump at him from his porch, he raised the gun, and fired.4 The bullet struck Decedent while he was in the air, and Shuler testified Decedent landed on the ground face down. Shuler stated he "fired out of reflex" and did not know whether he was shooting at a person. He said Decedent did not move, talk, or moan after he shot him. Decedent was shot at approximately 3:52 P.M.
When EMS arrived at the scene, Decedent was unconscious, and they intubated him. Upon arrival at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC), Decedent was still unconscious, and he underwent two surgeries to stop his bleeding. Decedent's brother testified that between Decedent's surgeries, doctors told him Decedent could hear him. The brother stated when he asked Decedent to squeeze his hand, Decedent complied. However, Decedent's wife (Wife) testified that although doctors told her the same, Decedent was unresponsive to her voice the entire time she was at the hospital. Doctors were unable to control Decedent's bleeding, and he was pronounced dead at 12:06 A.M. on April 20, 2012.
Wife filed suit against Shuler, individually and as the personal representative of Decedent's estate, for wrongful death, survival, and negligence. At trial, Wife testified about Decedent's medical bills and his annual income from working as a longshoreman and bail bondsman. She stated she received bills from MUSC totaling $203,251.25, and the master admitted the bills into evidence. Wife also claimed "that based on the caseload that he had," Decedent's income was $90,000 at the time of his death and that he received most of his income in cash. Wife stated she knew Decedent's caseload and income because she was often responsible for making cash deposits into his checking account. She also admitted that Decedent did not file tax returns for the year of his death but moved to admit two of his tax returns from 2007 and 2009. The master refused to admit the tax returns for the purpose of proving Decedent's income because they were incomplete and Wife failed to authenticate them. Wife further stated that she was impacted by the loss of Decedent's income because it helped pay the bills.
At trial, Shuler argued he was immune from civil action under the Act because he acted in self-defense. By order dated March 29, 2018, the master found Shuler (1) was not entitled to immunity under the Act because he failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting in self-defense when he shot Decedent, (2) failed to file a pretrial motion to determine immunity, and (3) Wife was entitled to an award under the wrongful death and survival statutes. The master awarded Wife $1,500,000 for the wrongful death claim and $100,000 for her survival action—totaling $1,600,000. This appeal followed.
I. Did the master err in denying Shuler immunity from civil actions under the Act?
II. Did the master err in finding Decedent's estate was entitled to a wrongful death award under section 15-51-10 of the South Carolina Code (2005)?
III. Did the master err in finding Decedent's estate was entitled to a survival award under section 15-5-90 of the South Carolina Code (2005)?
"Our scope of review for a case heard by a [m]aster-in-[e]quity who enters a final judgment is the same as that for review of a case heard by a circuit court without a jury." Tiger, Inc. v. Fisher Agro, Inc. , 301 S.C. 229, 237, 391 S.E.2d 538, 543 (1989). "In an action at law, ‘we will affirm the master's factual findings if there is any evidence in the record which reasonably supports them.’ " Query v. Burgess , 371 S.C. 407, 410, 639 S.E.2d 455, 456 (Ct. App. 2006) (quoting Lowcountry Open Land Tr. v. State , 347 S.C. 96, 101–02, 552 S.E.2d 778, 781 (Ct. App. 2001) ). Additionally, in cases tried without a jury, "questions regarding the credibility and the weight of evidence are exclusively for the [master]." In re Estate of Anderson , 381 S.C. 568, 573, 674 S.E.2d 176, 179 (Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Golini v. Bolton , 326 S.C. 333, 342, 482 S.E.2d 784, 789 (Ct. App. 1997) ).
Shuler argues the master erred in finding he was required to file a pretrial motion to determine if he was entitled to immunity from civil action under the Act. We disagree.
The Act codifies the common law Castle Doctrine and states the General Assembly finds it "proper for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of ... civil action ...." § 16-11-420(A), (B) (emphases added). Further, the Act provides immunity from civil action for law-abiding citizens who justifiably acted in self-defense, stating, "A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article ... is justified in using deadly force and is immune from ... civil action for the use of deadly force ...." § 16-11-450(A) (emphases added).
Whether a trial court is required to determine if a party is immune under the Act before a civil trial begins is a novel issue for this court.5 However, our supreme court has ruled that a defendant claiming immunity from criminal prosecution under the Act must establish his entitlement to this relief prior to trial. See State v. Duncan , 392 S.C. 404, 410, 709 S.E.2d 662, 665 (2011). We find the supreme court's ruling in Duncan instructive for our determination.
In Duncan , the court found the legislature intended to create a true immunity, not merely an affirmative defense, for law-abiding citizens who seek to invoke protection under the Act. Id. at 410, 709 S.E.2d at 665. Relying on the legislature's use of the words "immune from criminal prosecution" and "proper for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves[ ] ... from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil...
To continue reading
Request your trial