South Carolina Supreme Court Expands Stand Your Ground Protections

Ruling Extends Immunity to Social Guests

COLUMBIA, S.C. — The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that social guests in another person’s home may claim immunity under the state’s Stand Your Ground law if they use deadly force in self-defense.

The decision came in the case of Holly Jo Thompson, who was convicted in 2016 of murdering 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 sustained defensive wounds, and witnesses later described her as bruised and scratched.

Thompson argued self-defense from the start but never received a pretrial immunity hearing under the Protection of Persons and Property Act, also known as the Stand Your Ground statute. Her trial lawyers acknowledged during post-conviction proceedings that they had no strategic reason for failing to raise the law’s protections.

Court Finds Trial Counsel Deficient

In reviewing the case, the Supreme Court determined Thompson’s attorneys were deficient and rejected the lower courts’ conclusion that the law was unsettled. The justices stressed they were not rewriting or expanding the statute. Instead, they said the plain language of the Act already includes social guests.

Citing state law, the justices noted that a person attacked “in another place where he has a right to be” is not required to retreat and may use deadly force if necessary to prevent death, serious injury, or a violent crime. An invited guest, the court reasoned, has a right to be in the host’s home until the invitation is revoked.

The case has been sent back to the trial court to determine whether Thompson was prejudiced by her attorneys’ failure to seek immunity.

Broader Implications for Self-Defense Cases

South Carolina’s Stand Your Ground law is considered one of the broadest in the nation. It removes the duty to retreat in any place a person is lawfully present and restricts law enforcement’s ability to arrest someone claiming self-defense.

By clarifying that social guests are protected, the ruling gives defense attorneys a stronger basis to seek immunity hearings. Prosecutors, meanwhile, must be prepared to address a wider range of immunity claims.

The decision also carries weight in civil cases. A finding of lawful self-defense under the statute shields individuals from lawsuits as well as criminal charges.

Importance of Defense Strategy

The Thompson case underscores the risks of attorney missteps in self-defense litigation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the law already covered guests and noted that excluding them could lead to “plainly absurd results.”

For Thompson, the ruling could open the door to revisiting her 45-year sentence. For South Carolina courts, it cements broader protections for those claiming self-defense.