Case Name: STATE v. GUNTER
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1923-11-14
Citations: 126 S.C. 375
Docket Number: 11335
Parties: STATE v. GUNTER
Judges: Messrs. Justices Watts and Marion concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 126
Pages: 375–378

Head Matter:
11335
STATE v. GUNTER
(119 S. E., 844)
Homicide — Instructions as to Defense of Protecting One’s Castle Held Calculated to Prejudice Jury. — An instruction that “if a man is lying up with a woman in a bawdy house, * * * can it be said that he is entitled to the protection of himself as he would be in a house where he lived with his family?” held calculated to prejudice the jury against defendant and to constitute reversible error.
Before Memminger, J., Aiken, January, 1923.
Reversed and remanded.
Dozier Gunter was convicted of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and he appeals.
Messrs.. Williams, Croft & Busbee, for appellant, cite:
Man entitled to protect himself in home where he lived with woman to whom he had not been married: 29 S. C., 152; 83 S. E., 86; 84 S. E., 587; 91 S. C., 316; 66 S. C., 18. What is “Bawdy House”: Rap. & Law, Law Direct. 119. Jury can find verdict for assault and battery where indictment is for assault and battery with intent to kill: 98 S. C., 114. Right of man in his own home: 79 S. C., 148; 33 S. C., 125; 113 S. C., 256.
Mr. R. L. Gunter, Solicitor, for the State, cites:
Charge must be considered as a whole: 73 S. C., 364; 75 S. C., 409; 87 S. C., 532. Additional charge should have been requested: 83 S. C., 38; 83 S. C., 258.
November 14, 1923.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Cothran.
The facts are sufficiently stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Fraser. A majority of the Court are of opinion that the charge of the presiding Judge, in reference to the defense of protecting one's castle (although in an interrogative form), and to the relations of the defendant with the woman in the case, was calculated to prejudice the jury against the defendant and constituted reversible error. It is not necessary so to decide in this case, but we are not prepared to hold that a man, under the circumstances stated, is deprived of the right of self-defense, unless, as in State v. Emerson, 78 S. C., 83 ; 58 S. E., 974, his presence there was reasonably calculated to provoke a difficulty with the deceased, who was charged with the duty of protecting the woman.
The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed, and that the case be remanded to that Court for a new trial.
Messrs. Justices Watts and Marion concur.
Mr. Chiee Justice Gary did not participate.