The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that criminal defendants cannot seek a second immunity hearing under the state's Protection of Persons and Property Act following a mistrial, reversing a lower court decision that would have expanded defendants' rights in self-defense cases.
In *State v. Kierin Marcellus Dennis*, the high court unanimously held that immunity hearings function as independent proceedings separate from trial proceedings, meaning a mistrial does not entitle defendants to another chance at pre-trial immunity under the state's stand-your-ground law.
Chief Justice Donald Beatty wrote the opinion, which was heard Sept. 24, 2025, and filed Tuesday. The case originated from Lexington County, where Circuit Court Judge Eugene C. Griffith Jr. presided over the lower court proceedings.
The Protection of Persons and Property Act allows individuals who lawfully use deadly force in self-defense to claim immunity from prosecution through a pre-trial hearing. If immunity is denied at this hearing, the state's prosecution proceeds to trial. The act essentially provides a mechanism for defendants to avoid trial entirely if they can demonstrate their actions were legally justified.
Dennis had sought a second immunity hearing after his original criminal case ended in a mistrial. The South Carolina Court of Appeals agreed with Dennis, ruling that he was entitled to a new immunity hearing under the Act. However, the state appealed this decision to the Supreme Court through a writ of certiorari.
The Supreme Court's analysis focused on the fundamental nature of immunity hearings versus trial proceedings. The court explained that because immunity hearings serve as independent proceedings designed to determine whether prosecution should proceed at all, they are conceptually distinct from the trial itself.
"The Act confers immunity from prosecution upon those lawfully justified in using deadly force, with such immunity being determined through a pre-trial immunity hearing," Chief Justice Kittredge wrote in the opinion. "If immunity is denied, the State's prosecution may proceed."
The court emphasized that mistrials entitle defendants to new trials, which necessarily require trial courts to revisit evidentiary rulings and other matters directly connected to the trial proceedings. However, immunity hearings under the Protection of Persons and Property Act operate differently.
"An immunity hearing under the Act, however, in no way determines the admission of evidence at trial, nor does it impact the factfinder's determination of whether the State has established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," the court wrote.
This distinction proved crucial to the court's reasoning. Since immunity hearings address whether prosecution should occur at all, rather than how evidence should be presented or evaluated during trial, the court concluded that mistrials do not trigger the need for new immunity determinations.
The ruling provides clarity for criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors handling self-defense cases under South Carolina's Protection of Persons and Property Act. The decision establishes that defendants have one opportunity to claim pre-trial immunity, regardless of what happens during subsequent trial proceedings.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson represented the state in the case, along with Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Senior Assistant Attorney General J. Anthony Mabry. Senior Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy represented Dennis.
The case reflects ongoing legal questions about the scope and application of stand-your-ground laws, which have become increasingly common across the United States. South Carolina's Protection of Persons and Property Act, like similar laws in other states, aims to protect individuals who use force in self-defense from criminal prosecution when their actions are legally justified.
The Supreme Court's decision likely will influence how lower courts handle similar cases involving mistrials and immunity claims. Defense attorneys will need to carefully consider the timing and strategy of immunity claims, knowing they will not receive a second opportunity if their case proceeds to trial and ends in a mistrial.
For prosecutors, the ruling provides certainty that successful immunity challenges cannot be relitigated simply because trials end inconclusively. This may encourage more aggressive prosecution of cases where initial immunity claims are denied.
The court reversed the Court of Appeals decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The remand will allow lower courts to proceed with Dennis's case without requiring a second immunity hearing.
The decision reinforces the finality of immunity determinations under the Protection of Persons and Property Act while clarifying the relationship between pre-trial immunity proceedings and subsequent trial proceedings. Courts must now treat these as separate legal processes with distinct purposes and procedural requirements.