Opinion ID: 4533823
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pre-trial Immunity Hearing

Text: Williams moved for immunity pursuant to the Protection of Persons and Property Act.1 His immunity hearing was held the day before his jury trial began. Williams argued he was immune from prosecution under the stand-your-ground 1 See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 16-11-410 to -450 (2015); § 16-11-450(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 . . . .). provisions of subsection 16-11-440(C).2 Even though Williams does not appeal the trial court's denial of immunity, McFadden's testimony from the immunity hearing gives context to her trial testimony and the trial court's evidentiary rulings that are the subject of this appeal. Williams called McFadden as a witness during the immunity hearing.3 She testified that on the night of the shooting, she and Victim were inside the club shooting pool and socializing. She testified Victim's mood darkened when Williams entered the bar, ordered a drink, and walked back outside. McFadden asked Victim what was wrong, and Victim responded he was tired of [Williams] mean mugging. According to McFadden, mean mugging means giving someone dirty looks. McFadden told Victim to ignore Williams, but Victim told her he was going outside to see what [Williams] wants to do. McFadden begged Victim to stay inside the bar, but Victim refused and walked outside. Moments later, McFadden followed Victim outside into the parking area, where Victim was standing near the front of Williams' vehicle, with Williams behind the open driver's door about ten feet away from Victim. McFadden testified Victim was complaining angrily to Williams about Williams looking at him, and in response, Williams was telling Victim back up man, just leave it alone, back up, back up. McFadden testified she attempted to step in front of Victim and Williams started shooting. As defense counsel was questioning McFadden about the shooting, he asked McFadden to describe Williams, and she replied, [Williams] is a nice person, you know, quiet person, real quiet person, a self-person, don't bother nobody really. Since Williams had the burden of establishing the elements of self-defense (save the duty to retreat) under subsection 16-11-440(C), defense counsel had to establish that Williams was reasonably in fear for his life immediately before the shooting. McFadden testified Victim was very, very furious, very mad at Williams. She also 2 A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, 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 or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-440(C) (2015). 3 It is apparent from McFadden's testimony during both the immunity hearing and during trial that her sympathies lay with Williams, as her testimony generally supported Williams' claim of self-defense. testified she had known Williams for fifteen years, knew how to gauge his emotions, and that Williams seemed afraid for his life. On cross-examination by the State during the immunity hearing, after McFadden acknowledged she described her husband on direct examination as quiet, loving, and sweet, the State asked McFadden if Williams was the same man who (1) pulled an AK-47 on her during an argument eleven months before the shooting and (2) pulled a .22 caliber pistol on her during another argument six months before the shooting. McFadden admitted those two incidents occurred and that she called the police both times. The trial court denied Williams' motion for immunity, and the case proceeded to trial the next day. After jury selection, Williams moved to exclude testimony concerning the two incidents. Defense counsel stated, I understand the State's position was potentially that I may have opened the door [during the immunity hearing] when I asked the witness about . . . the defendant's character, whether or not he has a character for violence or anything of that nature. . . . I'm not planning on opening the door [in front of the jury]. I tell you very candidly I'm not planning on doing that again. The trial court instructed the State to request an in camera hearing prior to introducing evidence of any other bad acts committed by Williams.