A terrible tragedy has befallen the University of South Carolina after sophomore Nicholas Anthony Donofrio, 20, was shot and killed on the front porch of a house in Columbia. He was reportedly trying to enter the wrong home near the campus around 2 am. Donofrio lived at a house on the same street. It is an all-too-familiar pattern that we often discuss in my torts class where people are confused and try to enter the wrong home.
This is an unimaginable tragedy for the Donofrio family as well as the USC community. Donofrio had just transferred to the school and was a popular student who played on the basketball team. It is also a loss for friends and faculty at the University of New England where he spent his freshman year. His parents had just helped him move into the Phi Kappa Sigma fraternity house one week earlier. He was studying kinesiology and exercise science.
The original “academy” created in Athens involved students and faculty meeting in a grove. They would form a circle, a safe space for the exchange of ideas and viewpoints. That special sense of protection is shattered in these tragic moments.
Legally, the family may be faced with few options. South Carolina is a Castle Doctrine state as well as a Stand Your Ground state. That can factor heavily into the criminal investigation.
The common law has long offered protections even for reasonable mistakes. Castle doctrine states codified and, in some states, expanded on those common law protections. They have resulted in some highly controversial cases like that of Tom Horn in Texas.
I have included the South Carolina Castle Doctrine provision. Note that the law allows the use of deadly force against anyone who “is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence.” It does not limit the use of lethal force only for intentionally unlawful entries.
Moreover, the required showing is not a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, but a showing that the home owner “knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.”
Critics of these laws have long maintained that they encourage the use of deadly force when the common law offers ample protections.
The case is reminiscent of the shooting of a Japanese student in Baton Rouge. The 16-year-old Japanese exchange student, Yoshihiro Hattori, was looking for a Halloween party and scared the wife of Rodney Peairs when he spoke a strange language and approached the house. Peairs shot him in the chest with a .44 Magnum handgun and was later cleared under a Make My Day law as mistaken defense of his home and self. We also discussed a tragic case involving the killing of a law student.
While the investigation is ongoing, criminal and civil liability could prove challenging in light of these laws.
Here is the statutory provision:
(A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:
(1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.
(B) The presumption provided in subsection (A) does not apply if the person:
(1) against whom the deadly force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder; or
(2) sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship, of the person against whom the deadly force is used; or
(3) who uses deadly force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(4) against whom the deadly force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in the performance of his official duties, and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using force knows or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter is a law enforcement officer.
(C) 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 as defined in Section 16-1-60.
(D) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.
(E) A person who by force enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in violation of an order of protection, restraining order, or condition of bond is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act regardless of whether the person is a resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder.
HISTORY: 2006 Act No. 379, Section 1, eff June 9, 2006.
All of the articles you write are so needed. Thanks so much and I hope to see many many more coming from your pen!
Mr. Turley: one of the elements required is “forceably” attempting to enter a home they have no legal right to enter either by intent or by mistake. And Castle Doctrine defense to be valid requires that the homeowner’s property was being forceably entered.
Isn’t that at least worth mentioning in any commentary on the case? Don’t context and nuance matter more than appeals to emotions of sympathy?
Asking, because it would sure help to leave people outraged if they were in the belief that this man who was shot and killed did nothing more than walk up to the wrong door, turned the doorknob, opened the door, and walked in and then was shot.
It is a very different scenario to the reader if the person killed was using force to get in by kicking the door, prying on a locked window, etc.
Two very different scenarios, aren’t they?
Sometimes tragedy does happen – because the perfectly written law about anything has yet to be seen. That would include every single law in the US that denies citizens the right to carry firearms for their defense – supposedly to protect against tragedies just like this. If we were to compare the laws at both ends of that spectrum, which law costs more lives? The few tragic victims like this man who presumably made a mistake of where he lived and then compounded that mistake by trying to force his way in? Or the number of lives from women or others murdered where government denied them their Second Amendment rights to have a firearm for their defense?
Sidebar: those who claim there are common law protections for using a firearm for your defense in their opposition to Castle Doctrine: are they also available publicly explaining why the laws that denied a murder victim the right to a firearm for their defense explaining how that is a justifiable infringement of the Second Amendment – which is much more than common law?
I don’t like tragedies like this and obviously you don’t other. But your lamenting that Castle Doctrine will make prosecuting and convicting the home owner is emotion, not rationality.
I would suggest you write a column that lays out what YOU would propose as a far better Castle Doctrine than what exists now. One that presumably wouldn’t impose a duty on the home owner to guess the mindset and identity of a person attempting to forceably enter their home in the middle of the night. We don’t burden our police with those unreasonable expecations; why would we put that burden on people woken from sleep in their homes in the middle of the night?
“Tennessee lawmakers remove gun victims’ families from hearing “
This was an NBC article headline recently. SMH
Well, this “article” does little to enlighten anybody who is familiar with the kind of statute which is applicable. Could be written in five minutes. And to what end? This professor is a member of the Bar of South Carolina since when exactly? Maybe leave lawyering to real practitioners?
Q: How do you know there’s an important election coming up?
A: With the support of a complicit media, the Biden administration is reenergizing its base with a new round of Covid hysteria and renewed calls for forced vaccination and masking.
In other words, abandoning “my body, my choice”.
Wow. Internet wide my email is blacklisted, Mr. Constitutional law.
Sexology, I mean kinesiology and the science of exercise? If he had added mixology he would of had a hat trick. Thank God for Darwin. He didn’t dodge the bullet but we did.
?????
Presumably, you don’t contaminate that massive intellect you have on public display by watching any professional or college sports.
Because they all have kinesiologists on the payroll to help keep their athletes in peak physical condition. They work together with the trainers and physiotherapists.
And yes, it is a science.
Thank God you dodged that bullet called “brains” when God was handing them out.
Wow Dennis, your buddy Dick Head is back with another update on your breaking news. Good stuff man, keep it up!!!
Jonathan: BREAKING NEWS!
Wait, someone already broke this news here?? What??? Several people did??? Dang it it, I’m late to the party again!! I knew i should have cut my fart sniffing yoga class short today!! The “judge” compared a presidential candidate to a pro athlete in a stunning display of typical left wing analogy gone wrong. Never one to let logic “trump” stupidity and bias, i agree that DJT’s candidacy is “personal” or “professional”.
I heard John Lauro was squealing like a pig and miss tanya put that swine in his place. I read it in Salon or the Atlantic i think.
Now you would think that if DJT really thought he was innocent he would like a speedy trial to clear his “good” name. That is, if you are a total moron like me. And i bet if i work real hard at it, i can come up with something equally stupid to say in my next post.
Don, please allow us to talk to you now. My precious is here to guide you thru this process. We needs you to be in court in March so we doesn’t have to admit we is a complete tool.
Oh, sorry, i went all Smeagol there for a second. Sometime i get bore talking to you JT and just feel the need to reach out across the metaverse to the Don. I know he’s listening.
There’s a red under my bed
And there’s a little ORANGE man in my head
And he said, “You’re not going crazy, you’re just a bit sad
‘Cause there’s a man in ya, gnawing ya, tearing ya into two”
I’ll be back again as soon as my man Dennis finishes his turn sniffing.
Civility Rule Violation Here
The Civility Rule has a problem with you.
You need to be Banned For Life.
So does the “Richard Head” clown he was quoting, who came up with the “fart sniffing” BS several comments earlier. Turley REALLY needs to either up his standards for commenting or stop pretending that there are any standards. Otherwise, this is quickly degenerating into a glue-sniffing pre-school exercise.
Darwinism, like rust, never sleeps.
Jonathan: BREAKING NEWS! DC federal judge Tanya Chutkan in the case brought by Jack Smith against DJT over Jan. 6 has set a trial date of 3/4/24–right in the middle of the GOP primaries. John Lauro, DJT’s attorney louding complained that his client was involved in a political campaign and should not be burdened with having to prepare for a trial date in March. Judge Chutkan was having none of Lauro’s arguments. She compared DJT to a professional athlete facing criminal charges–saying it would not be “appropriate” to set a trial so not to conflict with the athlete’s professional schedule. Chutkan said: “Setting a trial date does not depend …on the defendant’s personal and professional obligations. Mr. Trump, like any defendant, will have to make the trial date work regardless of his schedule”. Predictably, DJT immediately lashed out at Judge Chutkan calling her “Trump hating” and said he will appeal the trial date. Normally, trial dates are not appealable.
Now you would think that if DJT really thought he was innocent he would like a speedy trial to clear his “good” name. DJT knows he has no real legal defenses to Jack Smith’s charges so he is desperately trying avoid trial dates before next year’s election. Sorry, Don. this is one court date you won’t be able to avoid. That’s before Judge Chutkan on 3/4/2024.
“This was terrible. It makes me mildly nauseous to think we might have had some impact on the election.”
– FBI Director James Comey to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 2017
Jonathan: BREAKING NEWS!
Wait, someone already broke this news here?? What??? Several people did??? Dang it it, I’m late to the party again!! I knew i should have cut my fart sniffing yoga class short today!! The “judge” compared a presidential candidate to a pro athlete in a stunning display of typical left wing analogy gone wrong. Never one to let logic “trump” stupidity and bias, i agree that DJT’s candidacy is “personal” or “professional”.
I heard John Lauro was squealing like a pig and miss tanya put that swine in his place. I read it in Salon or the Atlantic i think.
Now you would think that if DJT really thought he was innocent he would like a speedy trial to clear his “good” name. That is, if you are a total moron like me. And i bet if i work real hard at it, i can come up with something equally stupid to say in my next post.
Don, please allow us to talk to you now. My precious is here to guide you thru this process. We needs you to be in court in March so we doesn’t have to admit we is a complete tool.
Oh, sorry, i went all Smeagol there for a second. Sometime i get bore talking to you JT and just feel the need to reach out across the metaverse to the Don. I know he’s listening.
There’s a red under my bed
And there’s a little ORANGE man in my head
And he said, “You’re not going crazy, you’re just a bit sad
‘Cause there’s a man in ya, gnawing ya, tearing ya into two”
I’ll be back again as soon as my man Dennis finishes his turn sniffing.
Now Richard, if you think you or that judge can top Dennis when it comes to false equivalencies, you’re dreaming, man!
Dennis M… loves making sure there is ongoing goofy commentary.. also unrelated to the posting by Prof. Turley. The prosecution turned over Millions of pages of materials and no Defense attorney can possibly even review that, let alone prepare their case in a few months . Prof. Dershowitz explained this is spades this evening.. The Constitution says it is the Defense that is entitled to what it considers a speedy trial, not the Prosecution.. thus the Judge steamrolling this for March 4 disregards both the Constitution and the Defense…. so… what else is new from the Radical Left, which is so far left it has also become the Reactionary Right, both the real affront to Democracy.