Opinion ID: 2507697
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Curtilage/Duty to Retreat

Text: Dickey asserts the Court of Appeals erred in finding the trial judge correctly refused to instruct the jury on curtilage. In support of this assertion, Dickey claims the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the duty to retreat was adequately charged based solely on its conclusion that the public sidewalk was not curtilage. At trial, Dickey's counsel requested the following instruction on curtilage: The absence of a duty to retreat extends to the curtilage of the dwelling or place of business. The curtilage is the area of land adjoining a dwelling or business, which includes porches, outbuildings, yards, gardens and parking lots. Although the trial judge declined this instruction, he charged the jury on the duty to retreat: I would charge you that if a defendant is on his own premises or if a defendant is on his own place of business that the defendant had no duty to retreat before acting in self-defense. As previously discussed, I agree with the Court of Appeals' ruling that Dickey was not within the curtilage of the apartment building as he was on a public sidewalk at the time of the shooting. Even if curtilage should have been charged, I find Dickey's request to charge was an incorrect statement of law. The charge expanded this state's definition of curtilage by adding the phrase the area of land adjoining a dwelling or business. See Wiggins, 330 S.C. at 548 n. 15, 500 S.E.2d at 494 n. 15 (defining curtilage to include outbuildings, the yard around a dwelling, a garden of the dwelling, or the parking lot of a business); cf. State v. Brooks, 79 S.C. 144, 149, 60 S.E. 518, 520 (1908) (stating that one on his land, adjoining a public road, if assaulted by another who is on such road, is bound to retreat before taking the life of his adversary if there is probability of his being able to escape without losing his life or suffering grievous bodily harm given he would not have had the right to eject his adversary from the place where he had a right to be). Accordingly, I believe the Court of Appeals correctly found that self-defense was properly submitted to the jury and the trial judge sufficiently charged the requisite elements.