Background
Antonio Barnes received concurrent sentences of thirty-five years for murder and five years for possession of a weapon during a violent crime after shooting his roommate Antonio Dash and Eric Griffin inside an apartment. Barnes said he believed he was being robbed and acted in self-defense. Before trial, he sought immunity under South Carolina’s Protection of Persons and Property Act.
The circuit court denied immunity, and Barnes testified at trial. To challenge his claim of remorse and his self-defense account, the State introduced lyrics from a rap video Barnes had posted to YouTube. The particular YouTube lyrics had not been disclosed before trial; a different Instagram video disclosed by the State predated the shooting. The jury convicted Barnes.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the immunity ruling. The evidence did not show that either victim attacked, threatened, or even acknowledged Barnes. Nor did it show a forceful, unlawful entry that would trigger the statutory presumption of reasonable fear. Both men were shot repeatedly at close range, and the trial court had evidentiary support for finding that Barnes neither actually nor reasonably perceived imminent peril.
But the undisclosed YouTube lyrics required a new trial. Rule 5 of the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure obligates the prosecution, upon request, to disclose relevant recorded statements by the defendant. The lyrics directly undermined Barnes’s asserted remorse and affected a defense that depended heavily on his own testimony. Knowing about them could have changed his fundamental decision to testify. The State’s references to other rap material did not constitute disclosure, and Barnes’s authorship did not excuse the prosecution’s obligation. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant seeking pretrial immunity must prove the applicable self-defense elements by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The statutory home-defense presumption requires evidence of unlawful and forcible entry and does not arise merely because a shooting occurred at home.
- Rule 5 reaches relevant recorded statements the State plans to use, including a defendant’s online rap lyrics.
- Surprise impeachment is prejudicial when it could have changed the defendant’s decision to testify.
Why It Matters
Barnes gives South Carolina criminal practitioners important guidance on both immunity hearings and digital discovery. Defense counsel should develop specific evidence of threat, entry, and reasonable fear rather than rely on location alone. Prosecutors should inventory social-media material early and disclose the exact recording they may use, even when the defendant created or posted it.
The opinion does not categorically exclude rap lyrics. Its decisive point is procedural and contextual: the State used an undisclosed statement to attack the credibility of the only witness supporting the defense theory. Where testimony is central, late impeachment evidence can create a reasonable probability that the trial strategy—and verdict—would have differed.