entitlement immunity in South Carolina

2026In State v. Curry, our supreme court discussed "the legislative intent regarding a trial court's authority to weigh the underlying claim of self-defense in determining an accused's entitlement to immunity." 406 S.C. 364, 371 , 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013).

2026In State v. Curry, our supreme court discussed "the legislative intent regarding a trial court's authority to weigh the underlying claim of self-defense in determining an accused's entitlement to immunity." 406 S.C. 364, 371 , 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013).

2023At an immunity hearing, "the relevant inquiry is . . . whether the accused has proved an entitlement to immunity under the Act by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Andrews, 427 S.C. 178, 181 , 830 S.E.2d 12, 13 (2019). "[J]ust because conflicting evidence as to an immunity issue exists does not automatically require the [circuit] court to deny immunity; the [circuit] court must sit as the fact-finder at this hearing, weigh the evidence presented, and reach a conclusion under the Act." Cervantes-Pavon, 426 S.C. at 451 , 827 S.E.2d at 569 . "[T]he circuit court, in announcing its ruling

2023At an immunity hearing, "the relevant inquiry is . . . whether the accused has proved an entitlement to immunity under the Act by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Andrews, 427 S.C. 178, 181 , 830 S.E.2d 12, 13 (2019). "[J]ust because conflicting evidence as to an immunity issue exists does not automatically require the [circuit] court to deny immunity; the [circuit] court must sit as the fact-finder at this hearing, weigh the evidence presented, and reach a conclusion under the Act." Cervantes-Pavon, 426 S.C. at 451 , 827 S.E.2d at 569 . "[T]he circuit court, in announcing its ruling

2021Code Ann. §§ 16-11-410 to -450 (2015). 2 We decide this case pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR. avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in this particular instance." (quoting State v. Wiggins, 330 S.C. 538, 545 , 500 S.E.2d 489, 493 (1998))); State v. Glenn, 429 S.C. 108 , 123, 838 S.E.2d 491 , 499 (2019) ("In determining a defendant's entitlement to immunity under the Act, the circuit court must necessarily consider the elements of self-defense."); id. (reversing and remanding for a new immunity hearing when the trial court did not

2021Code Ann. §§ 16-11-410 to -450 (2015). 2 We decide this case pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR. avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in this particular instance." (quoting State v. Wiggins, 330 S.C. 538, 545 , 500 S.E.2d 489, 493 (1998))); State v. Glenn, 429 S.C. 108 , 123, 838 S.E.2d 491 , 499 (2019) ("In determining a defendant's entitlement to immunity under the Act, the circuit court must necessarily consider the elements of self-defense."); id. (reversing and remanding for a new immunity hearing when the trial court did not

2022We agree.4 "A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [appellate] court[s] review[] under an abuse of discretion standard of review." State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283 , 290, 786 S.E.2d 132, 136 (2016) (quoting State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 370 , 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013)). "[T]he relevant inquiry is . . . whether the accused has proved an entitlement to immunity under the Act by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Andrews, 427 S.C. 178, 181 , 830 S.E.2d 12, 13 (2019). "[J]ust because conflicting evidence as to

2022We agree.4 "A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [appellate] court[s] review[] under an abuse of discretion standard of review." State v. Jones, 416 S.C. 283 , 290, 786 S.E.2d 132, 136 (2016) (quoting State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 370 , 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013)). "[T]he relevant inquiry is . . . whether the accused has proved an entitlement to immunity under the Act by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Andrews, 427 S.C. 178, 181 , 830 S.E.2d 12, 13 (2019). "[J]ust because conflicting evidence as to

2021Code Ann. §§ 16-11-410 to -450 (2015). 2 We decide this case pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR. avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in this particular instance." (quoting State v. Wiggins, 330 S.C. 538, 545 , 500 S.E.2d 489, 493 (1998))); State v. Glenn, 429 S.C. 108 , 123, 838 S.E.2d 491 , 499 (2019) ("In determining a defendant's entitlement to immunity under the Act, the circuit court must necessarily consider the elements of self-defense."); id. (reversing and remanding for a new immunity hearing when the trial court did not

2021Code Ann. §§ 16-11-410 to -450 (2015). 2 We decide this case pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR. avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in this particular instance." (quoting State v. Wiggins, 330 S.C. 538, 545 , 500 S.E.2d 489, 493 (1998))); State v. Glenn, 429 S.C. 108 , 123, 838 S.E.2d 491 , 499 (2019) ("In determining a defendant's entitlement to immunity under the Act, the circuit court must necessarily consider the elements of self-defense."); id. (reversing and remanding for a new immunity hearing when the trial court did not

2021Code Ann. §§ 16-11-410 to -450 (2015). 2 We decide this case pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR. avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in this particular instance." (quoting State v. Wiggins, 330 S.C. 538, 545 , 500 S.E.2d 489, 493 (1998))); State v. Glenn, 429 S.C. 108 , 123, 838 S.E.2d 491 , 499 (2019) ("In determining a defendant's entitlement to immunity under the Act, the circuit court must necessarily consider the elements of self-defense."); id. (reversing and remanding for a new immunity hearing when the trial court did not

2021Code Ann. §§ 16-11-410 to -450 (2015). 2 We decide this case pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR. avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in this particular instance." (quoting State v. Wiggins, 330 S.C. 538, 545 , 500 S.E.2d 489, 493 (1998))); State v. Glenn, 429 S.C. 108 , 123, 838 S.E.2d 491 , 499 (2019) ("In determining a defendant's entitlement to immunity under the Act, the circuit court must necessarily consider the elements of self-defense."); id. (reversing and remanding for a new immunity hearing when the trial court did not

2013See Richardson v. McGill, 273 S.C. 142, 146 , 255 S.E.2d 341, 343 (1979) (“A sound public policy has long recognized an absolute immunity of members of legislative bodies for acts in the performance of their duties.”); see also Williams v. Condon, 347 S.C. 227 , 553 S.E.2d 496 (Ct.App. 2001) (discussing principles of legislative immunity as established by the United States Supreme Court in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 , 71 S.Ct. 783 , 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951)).

2013See Richardson v. McGill, 273 S.C. 142, 146 , 255 S.E.2d 341, 343 (1979) (“A sound public policy has long recognized an absolute immunity of members of legislative bodies for acts in the performance of their duties.”); see also Williams v. Condon, 347 S.C. 227 , 553 S.E.2d 496 (Ct.App. 2001) (discussing principles of legislative immunity as established by the United States Supreme Court in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 , 71 S.Ct. 783 , 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951)).

2013See Ray v. Austin, 388 S.C. 605, 611 , 698 S.E.2d 208, 212 (2010); Croft v. Old Republic Ins.

2013See Ray v. Austin, 388 S.C. 605, 611 , 698 S.E.2d 208, 212 (2010); Croft v. Old Republic Ins.

2013See Richardson v. McGill, 273 S.C. 142, 146 , 255 S.E.2d 341, 343 (1979) (“A sound public policy has long recognized an absolute immunity of members of legislative bodies for acts in the performance of their duties.”); see also Williams v. Condon, 347 S.C. 227 , 553 S.E.2d 496 (Ct.App. 2001) (discussing principles of legislative immunity as established by the United States Supreme Court in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 , 71 S.Ct. 783 , 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951)).

2013See Richardson v. McGill, 273 S.C. 142, 146 , 255 S.E.2d 341, 343 (1979) (“A sound public policy has long recognized an absolute immunity of members of legislative bodies for acts in the performance of their duties.”); see also Williams v. Condon, 347 S.C. 227 , 553 S.E.2d 496 (Ct.App. 2001) (discussing principles of legislative immunity as established by the United States Supreme Court in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 , 71 S.Ct. 783 , 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951)).

2013See Richardson v. McGill, 273 S.C. 142, 146 , 255 S.E.2d 341, 343 (1979) (“A sound public policy has long recognized an absolute immunity of members of legislative bodies for acts in the performance of their duties.”); see also Williams v. Condon, 347 S.C. 227 , 553 S.E.2d 496 (Ct.App. 2001) (discussing principles of legislative immunity as established by the United States Supreme Court in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 , 71 S.Ct. 783 , 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951)).

2013See Richardson v. McGill, 273 S.C. 142, 146 , 255 S.E.2d 341, 343 (1979) (“A sound public policy has long recognized an absolute immunity of members of legislative bodies for acts in the performance of their duties.”); see also Williams v. Condon, 347 S.C. 227 , 553 S.E.2d 496 (Ct.App. 2001) (discussing principles of legislative immunity as established by the United States Supreme Court in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 , 71 S.Ct. 783 , 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951)).