State v. Davis
214 S.C. 34, 51 S.E.2d 86 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'no duty to retreat' rule, applicable when a person is on their own premises or at their place of business, does not extend to an employee who is on the employer's property at a time and for a purpose wholly unrelated to their employment.
Facts:
- Mack Davis and Norman Gordon, Jr. had an afternoon argument at a tobacco barn where Gordon struck Davis.
- That night, both men were separately at a rural store operated by W. H. Hinds.
- Gordon asked Hinds for a gun, stating he feared Davis would shoot him, and upon being refused, said he would retrieve his own gun from the tobacco barn.
- Davis overheard this exchange, went to his home four-tenths of a mile away to get his shotgun, and began returning to the store.
- Davis took a path through a cornfield owned by Hinds to approach the store from the rear.
- This cornfield was cultivated by Davis's brother-in-law, and Davis had worked in the field as an employee, but was not there for work purposes on the night of the incident.
- In the cornfield, Davis encountered Gordon, who was now armed with a rifle.
- Davis shot and killed Gordon in the cornfield.
Procedural Posture:
- Mack Davis was indicted for the murder of Norman Gordon, Jr. and tried in a South Carolina state trial court.
- At trial, Davis asserted the defense of self-defense.
- Davis's counsel requested a jury instruction that because Davis was on premises where he worked, the law requiring retreat did not apply to him.
- The trial court judge refused to give the requested instruction.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty with a recommendation for mercy.
- The trial court sentenced Davis to life in prison.
- Davis (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee on his employer's property, whose presence is unrelated to his employment, have a duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Oxner, Justice
Yes. An employee on his employer's property does have a duty to retreat before using deadly force if his presence there is wholly unrelated to his employment. The well-established rule that a person is not bound to retreat if assaulted on their own premises (home, place of business, or other lawfully occupied property) is not applicable here. The homicide did not occur at or within the curtilage of Davis's home. Although Davis had worked in the cornfield, his presence there on the night in question was not connected to his employment; therefore, it cannot be considered his 'place of business' for the purpose of claiming immunity from the law of retreat. The court distinguished this from a prior case where a foreman attacked at his place of work was not required to retreat, emphasizing that Davis was not attacked while working.
Analysis:
This decision refines the 'place of business' exception to the duty to retreat, often associated with the castle doctrine. The court clarifies that the exception is not merely geographical; the defendant's purpose for being at the location is a critical factor. It establishes the precedent that simply having a right to be on a property (like an employee on an employer's land) is insufficient to negate the duty to retreat. The person's presence must be connected to the activities that give that location its special status as a 'place of business.' This ruling narrows the scope of the no-retreat rule and requires future courts to examine the context of a defendant's presence, not just the location itself.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Davis