State v. Scott

• Decision Date: 29 August 2018
• Docket Number: Appellate Case No. 2017-001607,Opinion No. 27834
• Citation: 424 S.C. 463,819 S.E.2d 116
• Parties: The STATE, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Shannon SCOTT, Respondent-Petitioner.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

424 S.C. 463

819 S.E.2d 116

The STATE, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.Shannon SCOTT, Respondent-Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001607

Opinion No. 27834

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard April 18, 2018

Filed August 29, 2018

Rehearing Denied October 17, 2018

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody J. Brown, Assistant Attorney General Alphonso Simon Jr., Solicitor Daniel E. Johnson and Assistant Solicitor April Woodard Sampson, all of Columbia, for Petitioner-Respondent.

Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Respondent-Petitioner.

JUSTICE FEW :

The circuit court granted Shannon Scott immunity pursuant to the Protection of Persons and Property Act, and the court of appeals affirmed. We affirm the court of appeals as modified.

I. Facts and Procedural History

On the night of April 10, 2010, Shannon Scott and his fiancé Rosalyn were asleep at Scott's home. Scott's daughter Shade and three of Rosalyn's daughters were at a party at a teen nightclub with friends. Shade had a history of problems with a girl named Teesha and her friends. Shade testified Teesha "started with me" by "flipping my hair, like back flipping my hair trying to hit me." Shade and her friends left the party but Teesha followed them into the parking lot where Shade described her as, "Being like ready to fight." Shade and her group left in one vehicle and Teesha and her group followed in an SUV. A third vehicle, a Honda, driven by the deceased—Darrell Niles—followed behind Teesha. It is unclear why Niles was following the two vehicles.

As Shade's group was driving away from the club, they stopped at a red traffic light. Shade and two other passengers in the vehicle testified that when Teesha's group stopped at the light, someone got out of Teesha's vehicle and approached their vehicle with a gun. Shade's group ran the red light and Teesha's group pursued them. Shade's group attempted to pull into a police station but the station was closed. One of the girls called her mother Rosalyn and explained they were being chased by Teesha. Rosalyn woke up Scott and informed him their daughters were being chased by "those girls." Rosalyn instructed her daughter to drive to Scott's home. It is unclear whether Scott or Rosalyn were informed of the presence of the gun.

When Shade's group arrived, they pulled around to the back of the house. Scott testified, "While they're going into the backyard, I see the truck coming down and some more headlights behind it." Scott and Rosalyn helped the girls inside through the back door. Two of Rosalyn's daughters testified they heard a gunshot as they were entering the house. Scott and Rosalyn also testified they heard a gunshot while they were getting the children inside. Rosalyn specifically testified Scott was in the house when she heard the first gunshot. After the gunshot, Rosalyn called 911.

After Scott heard the gunshot, he retrieved his roommate's gun and "ran" toward his front door. Both vehicles had driven past Scott's house and turned around, and both were positioned so the driver's side of the vehicle was facing the front of Scott's house. Scott testified,

The SUV ... turned around .... There was another car behind it. I seen the headlights.

The SUV came back up. As it came back up, it cut the headlights off and it was proceeding to come my way, maybe three miles per hour.

The circuit court found Scott did not fire first. "The credible testimony established that they turned the SUV around, turned off the lights, rolled down the windows and drove by [Scott's] home and began to fire." The court found that "in response to these events, [Scott] exited the front of his home onto a very small stoop." As the two vehicles approached, Scott fired a warning shot "straight in the air" and yelled not to come any closer. Scott testified,

After I fired the warning shot, the car proceeded to come closer and I heard another shot. I ducked down over the front hood of my vehicle that was parked up front all the way to the porch. And as I was ducking down and going back into the house at the same time, I shot back again. I shot and went back into the house.

He remembered he shot "twice, possibly three" times. The police arrived a few minutes later and discovered Niles was dead from a gunshot.

The State indicted Scott for murder. The circuit court granted Scott's motion for immunity under the Act. The court of appeals affirmed. State v. Scott , 420 S.C. 108, 800 S.E.2d 793 (Ct. App. 2017). The State and Scott filed petitions for a writ of certiorari, and we granted both petitions.

II. Analysis

In State v. Curry , 406 S.C. 364, 752 S.E.2d 263 (2013), we stated, "Section 16-11-450 provides immunity from prosecution if a person is found to be justified in using deadly force under the Act." 406 S.C. at 371, 752 S.E.2d at 266. Subsection 16-11-450(A) of the South Carolina Code (2015) provides,

A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties ....

Scott argues his right to self-defense and to defend his family are both a "provision of law" that permitted him to use deadly force. According to Scott, "the legislature must have anticipated a circumstance such as the one in this case, where a person's children were in imminent peril, and shots were being fired at him, his house, or towards his house, and where that person would be entitled to defend himself and his family."

We focus our analysis on self-defense. As we stated in Curry , "Consistent with the Castle Doctrine and the text of the Act, a valid case of self-defense must exist, and the trial court must necessarily consider the elements of self-defense in determining a defendant's entitlement to the Act's immunity." 406 S.C. at 371, 752 S.E.2d at 266.

There are four elements that must be established to justify the use of deadly force as self-defense.

State v. Dickey , 394 S.C. 491, 499, 716 S.E.2d 97, 101 (2011). Scott bears the burden of proving these elements by the preponderance of the evidence. State v. Duncan , 392 S.C. 404, 411, 709 S.E.2d 662, 665 (2011). The elements are,

(1) The defendant was without fault in bringing on the difficulty; (2) The defendant ... actually believed he was in imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining serious bodily injury, or he actually was in such imminent danger; (3) If the defense is based upon the defendant's actual belief of imminent danger, a reasonable prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have entertained the same belief ...; and (4) 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 this particular instance.

Dickey , 394 S.C. at 499, 716 S.E.2d at 101 (quoting State v. Wiggins , 330 S.C. 538, 545, 500 S.E.2d 489, 493 (1998) ).

The circuit court's order did not follow this structure with precision, but we can glean from its order the necessary findings of fact to support the conclusion that Scott established the four elements of self-defense.

First, as to the requirement that the defendant was without fault in bringing on the difficulty, the State did not argue Scott was at fault, nor is there any evidence in the record Scott was at fault. Scott was asleep in his home when Rosalyn woke him up and told him their daughters were being chased by Teesha. Scott was ushering his daughter and her friends into his house when he heard a gunshot. The circuit court found the girls in Teesha's vehicle "instigated the deadly circumstances." The court of appeals stated, "The parties agree Scott was not engaged in an unlawful activity at the time of the shooting." 420 S.C. at 114, 800 S.E.2d at 796.

Second, as to the requirement that the defendant believed he was in imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining serious injury, the circuit court found Scott had "a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death" and "it is abundantly clear to the Court ... the environment inside [Scott's] home was one of terrified, panicked young people, but also terribly frightened adults." There is evidence to support these findings.

Third, as to the requirement that the defendant's belief was reasonable, the circuit court found, "When [Scott] fired the shot, he reasonably believed he was being attacked with deadly force directed at his home." This finding is supported by the same evidence that supports Scott's actual belief. As to this element, however, the State and the dissent differentiate between the reasonableness of Scott's fear of attack by the occupants of Teesha's vehicle and his fear of attack by Niles. We will address this point separately below.

Finally, as to the requirement that the defendant had no other probable means of avoiding the danger, the circuit court found, "shots were fired by [one of the girls in Teesha's group] and then by [Scott] as [Scott] stood on the curtilage of his home." Based on this finding, the circuit court correctly concluded Scott was excused from proving this element because he was within the curtilage of his own home when he fired the shots. The circuit court stated, "At no point is it required that [Scott] retreat into his home to be fired upon without him being able to defend ... himself." See State v. Jones , 416 S.C. 283, 291, 786 S.E.2d 132, 136 (2016) ("Under the Castle Doctrine, ‘[o]ne attacked, without fault on his part, on his own premises, has the right, in establishing his plea of self-defense, to claim immunity from the law of retreat, which ordinarily is an essential element of that defense.’ " (quoting State v. Gordon , 128 S.C. 422, 425, 122 S.E. 501, 502 (1924) ) ); State v. Grantham , 224 S.C. 41, 45, ...