Background
Jeffery Bruce Wise, Jr. was prosecuted after punching a woman in the mouth. The blow caused her to permanently lose both front teeth and require permanent dental implants. A Lexington County jury convicted Wise of first-degree assault and battery. The circuit court imposed ten years of incarceration, suspended after eighty-nine days of service and four years of probation.
Before trial, Wise sought immunity under South Carolina’s Protected Persons and Property Act, the state’s statutory framework for immunity based on justified use of force. He asserted traditional self-defense and argued that he proved each required element by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court denied immunity after weighing the evidence, including Wise’s own testimony that he put his hand on the victim’s arm as she attempted to drive away.
Wise also moved for a directed verdict on the charged degree of assault. First-degree assault and battery can be established when an unlawful injury is accomplished by means likely to produce death or great bodily injury. State law defines great bodily injury to include serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of a bodily member or organ. Wise argued the State had not introduced evidence satisfying that threshold.
The two appellate issues invoked materially different standards. Immunity required the trial judge to find facts and decide whether Wise carried his burden before trial. The directed-verdict motion required the judge to view trial evidence favorably to the State and ask only whether qualifying evidence existed. The Court of Appeals analyzed each ruling under its own standard rather than treating the earlier immunity finding as controlling the jury question.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed both rulings. On immunity, a trial judge serves as the initial factfinder and may weigh evidence rather than accepting the accused’s account. Appellate review is for abuse of discretion. Traditional self-defense requires, among other elements, that the defendant be without fault in bringing on the difficulty. Wise’s admission that he touched the victim’s arm while she tried to leave supplied evidentiary support for the finding that he bore some fault in initiating the encounter.
Because the factual finding had record support, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Wise failed to prove every self-defense element by a preponderance of the evidence. The appellate court did not reweigh the competing accounts or substitute its own credibility determination for the trial judge’s.
The directed-verdict challenge also failed. At that stage, a court views the evidence and reasonable inferences in the State’s favor and asks only whether direct or substantial circumstantial evidence tends to prove guilt. Evidence that the punch caused permanent loss of two teeth, followed by permanent implants, was evidence of a protracted loss of a bodily member. The State therefore presented enough proof of great bodily injury to send first-degree assault and battery to the jury.
The panel’s conclusion depended on the existence of evidence, not an appellate determination that every dental injury necessarily qualifies. The permanence of the lost teeth and the continuing need for implants allowed a rational jury to apply the statutory definition. Questions about weight and competing characterizations remained for jurors rather than the directed-verdict stage.
Key Takeaways
- A South Carolina immunity judge weighs facts and credibility; the defendant’s version does not control merely because the request precedes trial.
- A defendant seeking self-defense immunity must prove every element, including freedom from fault in bringing on the confrontation.
- Even limited physical interference as another person tries to leave can support a finding that the defendant helped initiate the difficulty.
- Permanent loss of teeth and replacement with implants can constitute protracted loss of a bodily member sufficient to prove great bodily injury.
Why It Matters
South Carolina defense counsel preparing an immunity hearing should treat it as an evidentiary factfinding proceeding, not a preview governed by directed-verdict assumptions. Testimony about the moments before force was used can determine the freedom-from-fault element, so the sequence of contact, attempted withdrawal, and escalation must be developed carefully.
For charging and trial purposes, the opinion also confirms that permanent dental loss can support the statutory injury threshold even when implants restore appearance or function. Prosecutors and defense lawyers should develop evidence about permanence, treatment, and functional loss rather than focusing only on immediate trauma. The opinion is unpublished and generally nonprecedential under Rule 268(d)(2), SCACR, but it applies established South Carolina standards to concrete proof.