|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A ruling from the South Carolina supreme court has broadened the reach of the state’s already permissive “Stand Your Ground” law — clarifying social guests in another person’s home may claim immunity from prosecution when using deadly force in self-defense.
The case arose from the 2016 murder conviction of Holly Jo Thompson, who was sentenced to 45 years in prison following the death of her longtime client, James Solomon. Thompson admitted striking Solomon with a glass vase after he allegedly attacked her with a knife during a night of drug use in his home. She claimed self-defense from the beginning, but her trial attorneys never sought a pretrial immunity hearing under the Protection of Persons and Property Act — a.k.a. the Palmetto State’s Stand Your Ground statute.
In post-conviction filings, Thompson argued she had been an invited guest in Solomon’s home and was attacked while trying to leave. She sustained defensive wounds, and witnesses later described her as bruised and scratched.
Her attorneys, however, never raised the statute’s protections – and at her post-conviction relief hearing they admitted they could not recall any strategic reason for failing to do so.
***
The supreme court not only determined Thompson’s trial counsel was deficient – they rejected a lower courts’ conclusion that the Stand Your Ground law was unsettled. Importantly, the justices did not rewrite or expand the statute — they said the plain language of the Act already included social guests. Under the court’s reasoning (.pdf), a guest invited into a home has “a right to be” there until that invitation is revoked, making them eligible to stand their ground if attacked.
Citing the S.C. Code of Laws – § 16-11-440 (C) – the court pointed to the following provision:
“A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime.”
According to the justices, this language plainly covers invited guests — who, until their invitation is revoked, have a “right to be” inside the host’s home.
Thompson’s case has been remanded to the trial court to determine whether she would have been prejudiced by her attorneys’ failure to seek immunity.
South Carolina’s Stand Your Ground statute is already among the broadest in the nation – removing an affirmative duty to retreat in any place where a person is lawfully present — not just in their home or vehicle. The law also restricts law enforcement’s ability to arrest someone claiming self-defense, further strengthening its reach.
While around 38 states have some form of Stand Your Ground on the books, South Carolina’s version is widely regarded as more expansive than most, offering sweeping immunity protections in both criminal and civil proceedings. With Thompson, the Court clarified these protections apply to social guests as well — a group some prosecutors had argued fell outside the law.
***
RELATED | ‘STAND YOUR GROUND’ CASE: NO CHARGES FILED
***
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR SELF-DEFENSE LITIGATION IN S.C.
The court’s ruling significantly broadens access to immunity hearings in South Carolina. By affirming that the statute’s plain language covers social guests, defendants who previously faced uncertainty about their legal standing will now have a firmer basis to argue for immunity at the outset of their cases. This not only strengthens the hand of defense attorneys but also raises the stakes for prosecutors, who must now be prepared to overcome a wider range of immunity claims.
Beyond the criminal courts, the opinion carries weight in civil proceedings as well, since a finding of lawful self-defense under the statute shields individuals from lawsuits in addition to criminal charges. Finally, the decision underscores the importance of competent defense strategy. If trial lawyers fail to pursue immunity where it might apply, they risk not only their clients’ liberty – but also having verdicts overturned down the road.
The Thompson case illustrates both the high stakes of self-defense litigation and the far-reaching implications of attorney missteps. Thompson’s petition stressed that forcing invited guests to retreat from a violent homeowner would produce “plainly absurd results” the legislature never intended. By adopting this view, the state’s highest clarified it was applying the law as written.
***
THE RULING…
(S.C. Supreme Court)
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
