Listen to this article
The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed a decision of the South Carolina Court of Appeals that had required a second immunity hearing under the Protection of Persons and Property Act following a mistrial in a murder prosecution. The Court held that a mistrial does not nullify a prior denial of statutory immunity and does not entitle a defendant to relitigate immunity before retrial.
The defendant was charged with murder for fatally stabbing the victim after an altercation between rival high school sports fans. Before trial, the defendant sought immunity from prosecution under the Act, which provides immunity to individuals justified in using deadly force and requires the issue to be resolved at a pretrial hearing. At that hearing, the state presented evidence that the defendant instigated the confrontation by luring rival fans to a restaurant, driving aggressively toward them, and ultimately stabbing the victim. The defendant testified that he acted in self-defense, claiming the victim and others were reaching into his vehicle.
The circuit court denied immunity, finding the defendant failed to show that the victim unlawfully entered his vehicle, that he reasonably feared imminent harm, or that he was without fault in provoking the incident. The case proceeded to trial, which ended in a mistrial after the jury deadlocked. The defendant then sought a second immunity hearing based on evidence developed at the first trial, but the circuit court denied the request. After retrial, the defendant was convicted.
The court of appeals reversed, concluding that a mistrial wiped the slate clean and entitled the defendant to a new immunity hearing. The Supreme Court disagreed, drawing a distinction between trial-related rulings that must be revisited after a mistrial and pretrial determinations, such as immunity, that are independent of trial proceedings. An immunity ruling determines only whether prosecution is barred and does not affect trial procedure or the defendant’s ability to assert self-defense at trial.
The Court also affirmed the merits of the original immunity denial, holding the record supported the finding that the defendant provoked the confrontation and lacked sufficient justification for the use of deadly force. The case was reversed and remanded to the court of appeals to address remaining issues.
The 13 page opinion is The State v. Dennis, Lawyers Weekly No. 010-005-26.
