State v. Curry, 752 S.E.2d 263

On New Year’s Eve 2008, James J. Curry, Jr. shot and killed his cousin Devion Collins in an apartment after two physical altercations; Collins was unarmed and shot in the back six times.
Curry admitted the shooting and was charged with murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime; he testified he “blacked out” during the shooting.
At the close of the State’s case Curry moved for a directed verdict seeking immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act (the Act), which codifies the Castle Doctrine; the trial court denied the motion.
The jury was instructed on murder, voluntary manslaughter, common-law self-defense, and (erroneously, per the majority) on section 16-11-440(C) of the Act; the jury convicted Curry of voluntary manslaughter and the weapons charge.
Curry appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred in denying statutory immunity under the Act, (2) the Act required the court to accept his version of facts at the immunity stage, (3) the jury instructions on the Act and common-law self-defense were conflicting and prejudicial, and (4) the trial court erred in denying a new trial as thirteenth juror.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Curry)	Held
1. Entitlement to immunity under the Act at directed verdict stage	Trial court properly denied immunity because evidence did not establish statutory entitlement by preponderance	Curry argued he was entitled to immunity under §16-11-440(C) (no duty to retreat) and so prosecution should be barred	Court affirmed denial: trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence supported submission to jury rather than pretrial immunity
2. Whether trial court must accept accused’s version of facts when deciding immunity	Court may weigh evidence; Act does not require accepting defendant’s version wholesale	Curry argued the court had to accept his factual account and only decide legal prerequisites	Held: trial court may consider elements of self-defense (except duty to retreat) and weigh credibility when deciding immunity
3. Jury instruction conflict—charging both Act and common-law self-defense	State: any ambiguity favored defendant and was not prejudicial	Curry: charging §16-11-440(C) plus common-law self-defense confused jury and prejudiced him	Held: The instruction of §16-11-440(C) was error but benefited Curry and caused no prejudice; convictions affirmed
4. Motion for new trial under thirteenth juror doctrine	State: jury verdict supported by competent evidence	Curry: verdict should be set aside as judge should act as thirteenth juror	Held: claim without merit; competent evidence supported jury verdict; no new trial granted

State v. Duncan, 392 S.C. 404, 709 S.E.2d 662 (S.C. 2011) (pretrial procedure, burden, and review standard for Act immunity)
State v. Grantham, 224 S.C. 41, 77 S.E.2d 291 (S.C. 1953) (Castle Doctrine is defensive, not offensive)
State v. Davis, 282 S.C. 45, 317 S.E.2d 452 (S.C. 1984) (elements of self-defense)
State v. Brown, 321 S.C. 184, 467 S.E.2d 922 (S.C. 1996) (lawful guest in owner’s home has duty to retreat unless attacker is an intruder)
Gilchrist v. State, 364 S.C. 173, 612 S.E.2d 702 (S.C. 2005) (limits on expanding immunity-from-retreat beyond habitation/business)
State v. Isaac, 405 S.C. 177, 747 S.E.2d 677 (S.C. 2013) (denial of Act immunity is interlocutory and not immediately appealable)
State v. Gordon, 128 S.C. 422, 122 S.E. 501 (S.C. 1924) (no duty to retreat on one’s own premises)
State v. James, 867 So.2d 414 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (warning against broad extension of Castle Doctrine to lawful guests)