Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
24 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1923–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Daygreen2 sentences2025See State v. Day, 341 S.C. 410, 418 , 535 S.E.2d 431, 435 (2000) ("[A] trial [court] should specifically tailor the self-defense instruction to adequately reflect the facts and theories presented by the defendant."). 2025See State v. Day, 341 S.C. 410, 418 , 535 S.E.2d 431, 435 (2000) ("[A] trial [court] should specifically tailor the self-defense instruction to adequately reflect the facts and theories presented by the defendant."). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Fullergreen2 sentences2018These are the elements of self- defense."); State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 443 , 377 S.E.2d 328, 330 (1989) ("In charging self-defense, we instruct the trial court to consider the facts and circumstances of the case at bar in order to fashion an appropriate charge."); State v. Day, 341 S.C. 410, 418 , 535 S.E.2d 431, 435 (2000) ("As we held in Fuller, a trial judge should specifically tailor the self-defense instruction to adequately reflect the facts and theories presented by the defendant. 2018These are the elements of self- defense."); State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 443 , 377 S.E.2d 328, 330 (1989) ("In charging self-defense, we instruct the trial court to consider the facts and circumstances of the case at bar in order to fashion an appropriate charge."); State v. Day, 341 S.C. 410, 418 , 535 S.E.2d 431, 435 (2000) ("As we held in Fuller, a trial judge should specifically tailor the self-defense instruction to adequately reflect the facts and theories presented by the defendant. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Slatergreen2 sentences2021In Slater, our supreme court found there was no evidence to show the defendant was "without fault in bringing on the difficulty" and he was therefore not entitled to a self-defense instruction. 373 S.C. at 71 , 644 S.E.2d at 53 . 2021In Slater, our supreme court found there was no evidence to show the defendant was "without fault in bringing on the difficulty" and he was therefore not entitled to a self-defense instruction. 373 S.C. at 71 , 644 S.E.2d at 53 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Burrissgreen2 sentences2019The majority cites Slater for the proposition that "where the defendant's unlawful possession of a weapon is merely incidental to the defendant's lawful act of arming himself in self-defense, the unlawful possession *910 of the weapon will not prevent the use of an accident defense." 373 S.C. at 71 , 644 S.E.2d at 53 (emphasis added) (citing State v. Burriss , 334 S.C. 256 , 262 n.5, 513 S.E.2d 104 , 108 n.5 (1999) ). 6 Again, the majority acknowledges the evidence indicates Williams' gun was in his back pocket until he was attacked by Ladson. 2019The majority cites Slater for the proposition that "where the defendant's unlawful possession of a weapon is merely incidental to the defendant's lawful act of arming himself in self-defense, the unlawful possession *910 of the weapon will not prevent the use of an accident defense." 373 S.C. at 71 , 644 S.E.2d at 53 (emphasis added) (citing State v. Burriss , 334 S.C. 256 , 262 n.5, 513 S.E.2d 104 , 108 n.5 (1999) ). 6 Again, the majority acknowledges the evidence indicates Williams' gun was in his back pocket until he was attacked by Ladson. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Elmoregreen2 sentences2013The killing would be intentional, yet under our currently sanctioned charge, the jury would be permitted to find malice merely because “if one intentionally kills another with a deadly weapon, the implication of malice may arise.” Id. at 610 , 685 S.E.2d at 809 (citing State v. Elmore, 279 S.C. 417 , 421, 308 S.E.2d 781, 784 (1983), overruled on other grounds by State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45 , 69 n. 5, 406 S.E.2d 315 , 328 n. 5 (1991)). 2013The killing would be intentional, yet under our currently sanctioned charge, the jury would be permitted to find malice merely because “if one intentionally kills another with a deadly weapon, the implication of malice may arise.” Id. at 610 , 685 S.E.2d at 809 (citing State v. Elmore, 279 S.C. 417 , 421, 308 S.E.2d 781, 784 (1983), overruled on other grounds by State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45 , 69 n. 5, 406 S.E.2d 315 , 328 n. 5 (1991)). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Mattisongreen2 sentences2021STANDARD OF REVIEW "In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the [trial] court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial." Barber v. State, 393 S.C. 232, 236 , 712 S.E.2d 436 , 438 (2011) (quoting State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 478 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 583 (2010)). 2021STANDARD OF REVIEW "In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the [trial] court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial." Barber v. State, 393 S.C. 232, 236 , 712 S.E.2d 436 , 438 (2011) (quoting State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 478 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 583 (2010)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sweatgreen2 sentences2019See State v. Sweat, 362 S.C. 117, 127 , 606 S.E.2d 508, 513 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Evidence is admissible if 'logically relevant' to establish a material fact or element of the crime."). 2019See State v. Sweat, 362 S.C. 117, 127 , 606 S.E.2d 508, 513 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Evidence is admissible if 'logically relevant' to establish a material fact or element of the crime."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2019See Taylor, 356 S.C. at 235 , 589 S.E.2d at 5 (noting the trial court charged self-defense properly but "that charge was negated by the court's unwarranted charge on mutual combat," which limited the petitioner's "ability to claim self-defense" and prejudiced the petitioner by requiring him to prove self-defense). 2019See Taylor, 356 S.C. at 235 , 589 S.E.2d at 5 (noting the trial court charged self-defense properly but "that charge was negated by the court's unwarranted charge on mutual combat," which limited the petitioner's "ability to claim self-defense" and prejudiced the petitioner by requiring him to prove self-defense). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blurtongreen2 sentences2018A self-defense charge is erroneous where the trial court fails to charge on elements of the defense which were applicable to the issues raised by the defendant.") (internal citations omitted); State v. Blurton, 352 S.C. 203, 208 , 573 S.E.2d 802, 804 (2002) ("Only law applicable to the case should be charged to the jury. 2018A self-defense charge is erroneous where the trial court fails to charge on elements of the defense which were applicable to the issues raised by the defendant.") (internal citations omitted); State v. Blurton, 352 S.C. 203, 208 , 573 S.E.2d 802, 804 (2002) ("Only law applicable to the case should be charged to the jury. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whartongreen2 sentences2014See State v. Porter, 269 S.C. 618, 622 , 239 S.E.2d 641, 643 (1977) (noting the theory of transferred self-defense has not been accepted in South Carolina); cf. State v. Wharton, 381 S.C. 209, 215 , 672 S.E.2d 786, 789 (2009) (noting the applicability of the doctrine of transferred intent to voluntary manslaughter cases remains an unsettled question in South Carolina). 2014See State v. Porter, 269 S.C. 618, 622 , 239 S.E.2d 641, 643 (1977) (noting the theory of transferred self-defense has not been accepted in South Carolina); cf. State v. Wharton, 381 S.C. 209, 215 , 672 S.E.2d 786, 789 (2009) (noting the applicability of the doctrine of transferred intent to voluntary manslaughter cases remains an unsettled question in South Carolina). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Portergreen2 sentences2014See State v. Porter, 269 S.C. 618, 622 , 239 S.E.2d 641, 643 (1977) (noting the theory of transferred self-defense has not been accepted in South Carolina); cf. State v. Wharton, 381 S.C. 209, 215 , 672 S.E.2d 786, 789 (2009) (noting the applicability of the doctrine of transferred intent to voluntary manslaughter cases remains an unsettled question in South Carolina). 2014See State v. Porter, 269 S.C. 618, 622 , 239 S.E.2d 641, 643 (1977) (noting the theory of transferred self-defense has not been accepted in South Carolina); cf. State v. Wharton, 381 S.C. 209, 215 , 672 S.E.2d 786, 789 (2009) (noting the applicability of the doctrine of transferred intent to voluntary manslaughter cases remains an unsettled question in South Carolina). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Crosbygreen2 sentences2010However, *357 our supreme court has specifically pointed out there is a difference between being “armed in self-defense” and “acting in self-defense.” 3 State v. Light, 378 S.C. 641, 649, n. 6 , 664 S.E.2d 465, 469, n. 6 (2008); State v. Burriss, 334 S.C. 256, 265, n. 10 , 513 S.E.2d 104, 109, n. 10 (1999); see State v. Crosby, 355 S.C. 47, 52 , 584 S.E.2d 110, 112 (2003) 4 (stating “[a] person can be acting lawfully, even if he is in unlawful possession of a weapon, if he was entitled to arm himself in self-defense at the time of the shooting”). 2010However, *357 our supreme court has specifically pointed out there is a difference between being “armed in self-defense” and “acting in self-defense.” 3 State v. Light, 378 S.C. 641, 649, n. 6 , 664 S.E.2d 465, 469, n. 6 (2008); State v. Burriss, 334 S.C. 256, 265, n. 10 , 513 S.E.2d 104, 109, n. 10 (1999); see State v. Crosby, 355 S.C. 47, 52 , 584 S.E.2d 110, 112 (2003) 4 (stating “[a] person can be acting lawfully, even if he is in unlawful possession of a weapon, if he was entitled to arm himself in self-defense at the time of the shooting”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lightgreen2 sentences2010However, *357 our supreme court has specifically pointed out there is a difference between being “armed in self-defense” and “acting in self-defense.” 3 State v. Light, 378 S.C. 641, 649, n. 6 , 664 S.E.2d 465, 469, n. 6 (2008); State v. Burriss, 334 S.C. 256, 265, n. 10 , 513 S.E.2d 104, 109, n. 10 (1999); see State v. Crosby, 355 S.C. 47, 52 , 584 S.E.2d 110, 112 (2003) 4 (stating “[a] person can be acting lawfully, even if he is in unlawful possession of a weapon, if he was entitled to arm himself in self-defense at the time of the shooting”). 2010However, *357 our supreme court has specifically pointed out there is a difference between being “armed in self-defense” and “acting in self-defense.” 3 State v. Light, 378 S.C. 641, 649, n. 6 , 664 S.E.2d 465, 469, n. 6 (2008); State v. Burriss, 334 S.C. 256, 265, n. 10 , 513 S.E.2d 104, 109, n. 10 (1999); see State v. Crosby, 355 S.C. 47, 52 , 584 S.E.2d 110, 112 (2003) 4 (stating “[a] person can be acting lawfully, even if he is in unlawful possession of a weapon, if he was entitled to arm himself in self-defense at the time of the shooting”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bryantgreen1 sentence2004See id. at 345 , 520 S.E.2d at 322 . [7] Additionally, the supreme court cautioned that "a trial judge should specifically tailor the self-defense instruction to adequately reflect the facts and theories presented by the defendant." Day, 341 S.C. at 418 , 535 S.E.2d at 435 . [8] See Burkhart, 350 S.C. at 264 , 565 S.E.2d at 304 (ordering a new trial on charges of possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime after overturning the underlying conviction on the violent crime ). [9] Slater made no claim of "defense of others at trial," nor did his testimony in any way reflect an | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burkhartgreen2 sentences2004See id. at 345 , 520 S.E.2d at 322 . [7] Additionally, the supreme court cautioned that "a trial judge should specifically tailor the self-defense instruction to adequately reflect the facts and theories presented by the defendant." Day, 341 S.C. at 418 , 535 S.E.2d at 435 . [8] See Burkhart, 350 S.C. at 264 , 565 S.E.2d at 304 (ordering a new trial on charges of possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime after overturning the underlying conviction on the violent crime ). [9] Slater made no claim of "defense of others at trial," nor did his testimony in any way reflect an 2004See id. at 345 , 520 S.E.2d at 322 . [7] Additionally, the supreme court cautioned that "a trial judge should specifically tailor the self-defense instruction to adequately reflect the facts and theories presented by the defendant." Day, 341 S.C. at 418 , 535 S.E.2d at 435 . [8] See Burkhart, 350 S.C. at 264 , 565 S.E.2d at 304 (ordering a new trial on charges of possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime after overturning the underlying conviction on the violent crime ). [9] Slater made no claim of "defense of others at trial," nor did his testimony in any way reflect an | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fossickgreen1 sentence2004See id. at 345 , 520 S.E.2d at 322 . [7] Additionally, the supreme court cautioned that "a trial judge should specifically tailor the self-defense instruction to adequately reflect the facts and theories presented by the defendant." Day, 341 S.C. at 418 , 535 S.E.2d at 435 . [8] See Burkhart, 350 S.C. at 264 , 565 S.E.2d at 304 (ordering a new trial on charges of possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime after overturning the underlying conviction on the violent crime ). [9] Slater made no claim of "defense of others at trial," nor did his testimony in any way reflect an | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Washington
green
2 sentences2020Washington, 424 S.C. at 410-15 , 818 S.E.2d at 478-81 . 2020Washington, 424 S.C. at 410-15 , 818 S.E.2d at 478-81 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Grantham
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 45-46, 77 S.E.2d at 293 . 1955State v. Marlowe, 120 S. C. 205, 112 S. E. 921 ; State v. Gordon, supra; State v. Osborne, 200 S. C. 504, 21 S. E. (2d) 178 : State v. Grantham, 224 S. C. 41, 77 S. E. (2d) 291 . *421 For error in charging the law of retreat, the judgment is reversed and a new trial granted. | 2 | 1955–2007 |
Asbill Motor Co. v. Chaplin
green
2 sentences2005Counsel’s request was based on this Court’s holding in State v. Marlowe, 120 S.C. 205 , 112 S.E. 921 (1922), which involved a shooting at an Elk’s Club. 1955State v. Marlowe, 120 S. C. 205, 112 S. E. 921 ; State v. Gordon, supra; State v. Osborne, 200 S. C. 504, 21 S. E. (2d) 178 : State v. Grantham, 224 S. C. 41, 77 S. E. (2d) 291 . *421 For error in charging the law of retreat, the judgment is reversed and a new trial granted. | 2 | 1955–2005 |
State v. Brooks
green
2 sentences1948State v. Brooks, 79 S. C. 144, 60 S. E. 518 , 17 L. 1923State v. Marlowe, (S. C.) 112 S. E., 291 ; State v. Brooks, 79 S. C., 144; 60 S. E., 518 ; 17 L. | 2 | 1923–1948 |
Barber v. State
green
2 sentences2021STANDARD OF REVIEW "In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the [trial] court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial." Barber v. State, 393 S.C. 232, 236 , 712 S.E.2d 436 , 438 (2011) (quoting State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 478 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 583 (2010)). 2021STANDARD OF REVIEW "In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the [trial] court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial." Barber v. State, 393 S.C. 232, 236 , 712 S.E.2d 436 , 438 (2011) (quoting State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 478 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 583 (2010)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 46 , 317 S.E.2d at 453 . . "[Fuller] testified that he saw Dixon and Phillips open the trunk of their car and also thought he saw a shiny object in Dixon’s hand." Id. at 444, 377 S.E.2dat331. . 2016Id. at 46 , 317 S.E.2d at 453 . . "[Fuller] testified that he saw Dixon and Phillips open the trunk of their car and also thought he saw a shiny object in Dixon’s hand." Id. at 444, 377 S.E.2dat331. . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2014Respondent has never raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding counsel’s advice to accept the plea bargain. 6 . 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 7 . 2014Respondent has never raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding counsel’s advice to accept the plea bargain. 6 . 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 7 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Torrence
green
2 sentences2013The killing would be intentional, yet under our currently sanctioned charge, the jury would be permitted to find malice merely because “if one intentionally kills another with a deadly weapon, the implication of malice may arise.” Id. at 610 , 685 S.E.2d at 809 (citing State v. Elmore, 279 S.C. 417 , 421, 308 S.E.2d 781, 784 (1983), overruled on other grounds by State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45 , 69 n. 5, 406 S.E.2d 315 , 328 n. 5 (1991)). 2013The killing would be intentional, yet under our currently sanctioned charge, the jury would be permitted to find malice merely because “if one intentionally kills another with a deadly weapon, the implication of malice may arise.” Id. at 610 , 685 S.E.2d at 809 (citing State v. Elmore, 279 S.C. 417 , 421, 308 S.E.2d 781, 784 (1983), overruled on other grounds by State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45 , 69 n. 5, 406 S.E.2d 315 , 328 n. 5 (1991)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Belcher
green
2 sentences2013The killing would be intentional, yet under our currently sanctioned charge, the jury would be permitted to find malice merely because “if one intentionally kills another with a deadly weapon, the implication of malice may arise.” Id. at 610 , 685 S.E.2d at 809 (citing State v. Elmore, 279 S.C. 417 , 421, 308 S.E.2d 781, 784 (1983), overruled on other grounds by State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45 , 69 n. 5, 406 S.E.2d 315 , 328 n. 5 (1991)). 2013The killing would be intentional, yet under our currently sanctioned charge, the jury would be permitted to find malice merely because “if one intentionally kills another with a deadly weapon, the implication of malice may arise.” Id. at 610 , 685 S.E.2d at 809 (citing State v. Elmore, 279 S.C. 417 , 421, 308 S.E.2d 781, 784 (1983), overruled on other grounds by State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45 , 69 n. 5, 406 S.E.2d 315 , 328 n. 5 (1991)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Marlowe
green
1 sentence2005Counsel’s request was based on this Court’s holding in State v. Marlowe, 120 S.C. 205 , 112 S.E. 921 (1922), which involved a shooting at an Elk’s Club. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Goodson
green
2 sentences1999Justice Toal's concurrence noted, "[a]ssuming the incident inside the bar gave rise to a self-defense claim sufficient to render [the defendant's] act of arming himself lawful, any lawfulness in [the defendant's] being armed ended when he was no longer threatened." Id., 312 S.C. at 282 , S.E.2d at 373. [4] *269 Assuming James' attack authorized appellant to lawfully arm himself in self-defense, any lawfulness in being armed ended when James released appellant and stepped aside, and Kenneth went inside the apartment. 1999Justice Toal’s concurrence noted, “[ajssuming the incident inside the bar gave rise to a self-defense claim sufficient to render [the defendant’s] act of arming himself lawful, any lawfulness in [the defendant’s] being armed ended when he was no longer threatened.” Id., 312 S.C. at 282 , S.E.2d at 373. 4 Assuming James’ attack authorized appellant to lawfully arm himself in self-defense, any lawfulness in being armed ended when James released appellant and stepped aside, and Kenneth went inside the apartment. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Osborne
green
1 sentence1955State v. Marlowe, 120 S. C. 205, 112 S. E. 921 ; State v. Gordon, supra; State v. Osborne, 200 S. C. 504, 21 S. E. (2d) 178 : State v. Grantham, 224 S. C. 41, 77 S. E. (2d) 291 . *421 For error in charging the law of retreat, the judgment is reversed and a new trial granted. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
State v. Gordon
green
1 sentence1955State v. Marlowe, 120 S. C. 205, 112 S. E. 921 ; State v. Gordon, supra; State v. Osborne, 200 S. C. 504, 21 S. E. (2d) 178 : State v. Grantham, 224 S. C. 41, 77 S. E. (2d) 291 . *421 For error in charging the law of retreat, the judgment is reversed and a new trial granted. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
| Powell v. State neutral | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.