1. REDACTED WRITING SAMPLE
MEMORANDUM
To: REDACTED
From: Lindsay Lee
RE: “Stand Your Ground”
Date: January 22, 2016
____________________________________________________________________________
Issue
I was instructed to research the requirements for the “Stand Your Ground” defense used
in SC for a case that involves a death that occurred out of a scuffle between client and an
attacker?
Discussion
In the state of South Carolina, the Protection of Persons and Property Act, which is
found under Article 6 of the South Carolina Code, governs the statutes used in place of the
“Stand Your Ground” defense. Under this act, it is proper for a law-abiding citizen to protect
oneself from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in
defense of oneself. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-420(B). Immunity from criminal prosecution can be
granted under this act if “[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.” S.C. Code Ann. §
16-11-450(A).
State v Duncan sets the standard of review courts use in cases that involve the
Protection of Persons and Property Act. State v Duncan, 392 S.C 404, 709 S.E.2d 662 (2011).
In this case, an argument ensued between the defendant and the victim where the victim was
then asked to leave the defendant’s home. Id. The victim later returned to the defendant’s home
and the defendant approached the victim with a gun. Id. The victim was forcing his way into the
defendant’s home when the defendant pointed the gun at the victim and shot and killed him. Id.
Prior to the trial in circuit court, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment against him
arguing that he was entitled to immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act. Id.
The defendant presented evidence showing that the victim forced entry into his home which
caused him to have a reasonable fear of imminent danger. The circuit court dismissed the
indictment granting defendant immunity under the Act. Id.
On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court’s
conclusion stating that using a preponderance of evidence abuse of discretion standard of
review is proper. The Supreme Court defined the Act as an “immunity provision [used] to shield
a person from a ‘full blown criminal trial.’" Therefore, raising a pretrial motion to dismiss under
the statute allows for the court to properly enforce full immunity where the defendant never has
to participate in trial.
In a similar case, at the close of the State’s evidence, the defense counsel moved for a
directed verdict of acquittal under the Protection of Persons and Property Act. State v Curry,
406 S.C 364, 752 S.E.2d 236 (2013). The trial court subsequently denied the motion and the
Supreme Court upheld that decision. Id. The court in Curry used the abuse of discretion

2. standard of review from Duncan, which states that “[a] claim of immunity under the Act requires
a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard”. Id. Therefore, unlike
the defendant in Duncan, the defendant in Curry waited until the trial to move to dismiss the
case which was too late. At that point, the true immunity that is to be granted under the Act
could not be enforced because the case went to trial. As stated in Duncan, the meaning of the
Act is to protect the defendant from criminal prosecution if found to have acted proper under the
statute. The court properly denied the motion and the defendant was convicted for murder.
Conclusion
Based on the precedent of Duncan and Curry, in order to receive immunity under the
Protection of Persons and Property Act, the defendant must move to dismiss prior to the trial
and present evidence by a preponderance of that evidence for the court to find that the
defendant acted properly out of a reasonable fear of imminent danger upon his life.