747 S.E.2d 677
S.C.2013Background
- On Oct. 27, 2005, Appellant accompanied Tavares World to a victim's apartment after World demanded repayment; World gave Appellant a .380 handgun.
- World forced entry and fought the victim; Appellant initially tried to intervene, then stood outside; later Appellant shot and killed the victim. Appellant was arrested in 2012 and indicted for murder and related offenses.
- Before trial Appellant sought a pretrial hearing for immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act (the Act); the trial court held a hearing and denied immunity as a matter of law.
- Appellant immediately appealed the denial of immunity; the State Supreme Court expedited the matter and considered (1) whether the denial is immediately appealable and (2) whether the Act applies retroactively to crimes committed before its effective date.
- The Court held the denial of immunity is not immediately appealable and that the Act is prospective only (its savings clause preserves pre-existing rights and liabilities), so the Act did not apply to crimes committed in 2005. The appeal was dismissed and the case remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability: Is denial of a pretrial immunity motion under the Act immediately appealable? | Appellant: denial must be immediately appealable to preserve review of statutory immunity. | State/majority: Denial is interlocutory, not a final order or injunction under §14-3-330; must wait until conviction/sentence to appeal. | Denial of immunity is not immediately appealable; appeal dismissed. |
| Nature of Duncan precedent: Did State v. Duncan create immediate appealability for immunity denials? | Appellant: Duncan allows immediate review of immunity rulings. | Majority: Duncan was dicta on appealability; only orders granting immunity are immediately appealable as final orders. | Clarified Duncan: grants are immediately appealable as final orders; denials are not. |
| Retroactivity: Does the Act apply to crimes committed before its June 9, 2006 effective date but tried after that date? | Appellant: Act should apply because trial occurred after enactment. | State/majority: Act contains a savings clause preserving pre-existing rights/liabilities, indicating prospective application. | Act is prospective; does not apply to offenses committed in 2005. |
| Extraordinary relief: May defendants seek extraordinary writs (certiorari/prohibition) to review denial pretrial? | Appellant (implied): extraordinary relief may be appropriate to avoid wrongful prosecution. | Majority: extraordinary writs are for exceptional cases; prohibition is inappropriate when trial court has jurisdiction. | Writs are limited to extraordinary circumstances; prohibition generally not available here. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Duncan, 392 S.C. 404 (2011) (discussed appealability of immunity rulings; court clarifies its dicta)
- State v. Miller, 289 S.C. 426 (1986) (criminal appeals generally not immediate; must fall within §14-3-330)
- Mid-State Distrib., Inc. v. Century Imp., Inc., 310 S.C. 330 (1993) (definition of an order involving the merits)
- State v. Dawson, 402 S.C. 160 (2013) (application of savings clause; statutes not applied retroactively)
- State v. Brown, 402 S.C. 119 (2013) (same conclusion on prospective application of amended criminal statutes)
- State v. Hughes, 56 S.C. 540 (1900) (against piecemeal appeals in criminal cases)