State v. Willie Smith

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Willie James Smith, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2024-000879

Appeal From Florence County
H. Steven DeBerry, IV, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-204
Submitted April 1, 2026 – Filed May 6, 2026

AFFIRMED

Senior Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown,
and Assistant Attorney General MacKinnon Grace
Westraad, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Willie James Smith appeals his conviction for murder and
sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, Smith argues the trial court erred in
denying his request for a self-defense jury instruction. We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR.
We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Smith's request for a
self-defense jury instruction. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to
Smith, there was no evidence presented at trial showing Smith was, or believed he
was, in actual imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining serious bodily
injury. See State v. Wright, 416 S.C. 353, 364, 785 S.E.2d 479, 485 (Ct. App.
2016) ("In criminal cases, an appellate court sits to review only errors of law, and it
is bound by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous."
(quoting State v. Brown, 401 S.C. 82, 87, 736 S.E.2d 263, 265 (2012))); State v.
Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479, 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will
not reverse the trial [court's] decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of
discretion."); State v. Williams, 400 S.C. 308, 314, 733 S.E.2d 605, 608-09 (Ct.
App. 2012) ("When reviewing the [trial] court's refusal to deliver a requested jury
instruction, appellate courts must consider the evidence in a light most favorable to
the defendant."); Wright, 416 S.C. at 375, 785 S.E.2d at 491 ("To establish
self-defense in South Carolina, four elements must be present: (1) the defendant
must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty; (2) the defendant must have
been in actual imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining serious bodily
injury, or he must have actually believed he was in imminent danger of losing his
life or sustaining serious bodily injury; (3) if his defense is based upon his belief of
imminent danger, the defendant must show that a reasonably prudent person of
ordinary firmness and courage would have entertained the belief that he was
actually in imminent danger and that 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 the loss of his life; and
(4) the defendant had no other probable means of avoiding the danger." (quoting
State v. Light, 378 S.C. 641, 649, 664 S.E.2d 465, 469 (2008))); id. ("If there is any
evidence in the record from which it could reasonably be inferred that the
defendant acted in self-defense, the defendant is entitled to instructions on the
defense, and the trial [court's] refusal to do so is reversible error." (quoting Light,
378 S.C. at 650, 664 S.E.2d at 469)).

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and TURNER, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.