State v. Pearson

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.

Brittany Shaunta Pearson, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001216

Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-324
Submitted June 1, 2018 – Filed July 18, 2018

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, both of
Columbia, and Solicitor Barry Joe Barnette, of
Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-440(C) (2015) ("A person who is not engaged
in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to
be . . . has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force
with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to
prevent death or great bodily injury to himself . . . ."); State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364,
370, 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013) ("A claim of immunity under the [Protection of
Persons and Property Act (the Act)] requires a pretrial determination using a
preponderance of the evidence standard, which this court reviews under an abuse
of discretion standard of review."); State v. Douglas, 411 S.C. 307, 316, 768
S.E.2d 232, 237 (Ct. App. 2014) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial
court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions,
is without evidentiary support." (quoting State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 570, 647
S.E.2d 144, 166-67 (2007)); Curry, 406 S.C. at 371, 752 S.E.2d at 266 (finding the
General Assembly did not intend for the Act to be construed to require a trial court
to accept the accused's version of the underlying facts); id. ("[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. This
includes all elements of self-defense, save the duty to retreat."); Douglas, 411 S.C.
at 318, 768 S.E.2d at 238-39 (providing the elements of self-defense save the duty
to retreat are (1) the defendant must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;
(2) the defendant must believe he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily
injury or actually be in such imminent danger; and (3) the defendant's fear must be
reasonable); id. at 320 n.7, 768 S.E.2d at 239 n.7 ("[T]he standard for evaluating
whether an accused had a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to
prevent great bodily harm to himself is objective, rather than subjective."); Curry,
406 S.C. at 372, 752 S.E.2d at 267 ("Appellant's claim of self-defense presents a
quintessential jury question, which, most assuredly, is not a situation warranting
immunity from prosecution.").

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, THOMAS, and HILL, JJ., concur.

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