Opinion ID: 2509688
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pre-trial determination of immunity

Text: The State argues the circuit court erred in making a pre-trial determination of immunity. [2] We disagree. The Act provides, It is the intent of the General Assembly to codify the common law Castle Doctrine which recognizes that a person's home is his castle.... S.C.Code Ann. § 16-11-420(A) (Supp.2010). The Act also states, the General Assembly finds that it is proper for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others. S.C.Code Ann. § 16-11-420(B) (Supp.2010). The Act further provides: (A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person: (1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle ...; and (2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred. .... (D) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60. S.C.Code Ann. § 16-11-440 (Supp.2010). The immunity provision at issue provides: (A) A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer.... S.C.Code Ann. § 16-11-450 (Supp.2010) (emphasis supplied). The primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Mid-State Auto Auction of Lexington, Inc. v. Altman, 324 S.C. 65, 69, 476 S.E.2d 690, 692 (1996). Unless there is something in the statute requiring a different interpretation, the words used in a statute must be given their ordinary meaning. Id. When a statute's terms are clear and unambiguous on their face, there is no room for statutory construction and a court must apply the statute according to its literal meaning. Sloan v. Hardee, 371 S.C. 495, 498, 640 S.E.2d 457, 459 (2007). Black's Law Dictionary defines immune as having immunity or being exempt from a duty or liability. Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.2009). Prosecution is defined as a criminal proceeding in which an accused person is tried. Id. The trial court found the plain meaning of the immunity provision was to shield a person from a full blown criminal trial. Accordingly, the trial court found the only way this statutorily granted right could be meaningfully enforced was for the defendant to be able to raise immunity in a pre-trial motion. Whether immunity under the Act should be determined prior to trial is an issue of first impression in this state. Further, the Act does not explicitly provide a procedure for determining immunity. In deciding this matter, we find guidance from several other states that have addressed similar statutory immunity provisions. In Fair v. State, the Supreme Court of Georgia held the trial court erred in refusing to rule on the defendants' immunity [3] prior to trial. Fair v. State, 284 Ga. 165, 166, 664 S.E.2d 227, 230 (Ga.2008). Particularly, the Fair court found that by the plain meaning of immune from prosecution, the statute must be construed to bar criminal proceedings against persons who used force under the circumstances set forth in the statute, and that this determination must be made before the trial commences. Id. In the recent decision of Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456 (Fla.2010), the Supreme Court of Florida approved the reasoning of Peterson v. Florida, 983 So.2d 27 (Fla.1st D.C.A.2008), where the First District Court of Appeal found that by enacting a statute [4] similar to the Act at issue here, the legislature intended to establish a true immunity and not merely an affirmative defense. The Dennis court therefore found the plain language of the statute grants defendants a substantive right to assert immunity from prosecution and to avoid being subjected to a trial. Dennis, 51 So.3d at 462. The Dennis court concluded that, where a defendant files a motion to dismiss on the basis of Florida's Stand Your Ground statute, the trial court should conduct a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to decide the factual question of the applicability of the statutory immunity. Id. Likewise, we find that, by using the words immune from criminal prosecution, the legislature intended to create a true immunity, and not simply an affirmative defense. We also look to the language of the statute that provides, the General Assembly finds that it is proper for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others. We agree with the circuit court that the legislature intended defendants be shielded from trial if they use deadly force as outlined under the Act. Immunity under the Act is therefore a bar to prosecution and, upon motion of either party, must be decided prior to trial. Accordingly, we find the trial court properly made a pre-trial determination of respondent's immunity.