State v. Scott

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.

Wayne Albeon Scott, Jr., Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002365

Appeal From Florence County
George C. James, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-513
Submitted October 1, 2015 – Filed November 12, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and
Assistant Attorney General Kaycie Smith Timmons, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of
Florence, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Wayne Scott appeals his convictions for murder and possession
of a weapon during a violent crime, arguing the trial court erred in failing to (1)
grant him immunity from prosecution for the murder charge pursuant to section
16-11-410 South Carolina Code (Supp. 2014), the Protection of Persons and
Property Act (the Act), and (2) charge the jury on the Act. We affirm1 pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in failing to grant immunity under the Act:
State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 370, 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013) ("A claim of
immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of
the evidence standard, which [the appellate] court reviews under an abuse of
discretion standard of review."); State v. Douglas, 411 S.C. 307, 316, 768 S.E.2d
232, 238 (Ct. App. 2014) ("[T]he abuse of discretion standard of review does not
allow this court to reweigh the evidence or second-guess the trial court's
assessment of witness credibility."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d
262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial
court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); Curry,
406 S.C. at 371, 752 S.E.2d at 266 ("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."); id. ("This includes all elements of self-
defense, save the duty to retreat."); id. at 372, 752 S.E.2d at 267 ("[I]mmunity is
predicated on an accused demonstrating the elements of self-defense to the
satisfaction of the trial court by the preponderance of the evidence.").

2. As to whether the trial court erred is failing to charge the jury on the Act: State
v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 141, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("In order for an issue
to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by
the trial judge. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be
considered on appeal."); State v. Rios, 388 S.C. 335, 342, 696 S.E.2d 608, 612 (Ct.
App. 2010) (stating failure to contemporaneously object to jury charges fails to
preserve the issue for appellate review); State v. Babb, 299 S.C. 451, 455, 385
S.E.2d 827, 829 (1989) ("[A] party cannot complain of an error which his own
conduct has induced.").

AFFIRMED.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
HUFF, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.