Trial Court’s Discretion in Self-Defense Jury Instructions: Precision of Verbiage Not Required When Law Is Adequately Covered

Introduction

State v. Mark Anthony Hailey Jr. (Supreme Court of South Carolina, April 16, 2025) presented a challenge to the scope of trial court discretion in fashioning jury instructions on self-defense. The appellant, Mark Hailey Jr., was convicted of murder and weapons charges after shooting Marty George from the backseat of George’s car. Hailey claimed self-defense; the State argued he acted out of drug-induced paranoia. At trial, Hailey requested two supplemental self-defense instructions—one clarifying that no duty to retreat arises if retreat increases danger, and an “equal terms” instruction drawn from State v. Hendrix. The court gave the first but denied the “equal terms” instruction. The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, but the Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed again, holding the trial court’s overall self-defense charge adequately covered the law.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Hailey’s requested “equal terms” jury instruction. The court reiterated that jury charges must be considered in their entirety and that the precise language a party requests is not mandatory if the substance of the law is properly conveyed. Because the charge, modeled on State v. Davis and supplemented by the no-duty-to-retreat language, fully and correctly stated self-defense principles, the omission of the Hendrix-style “equal terms” verbiage was not reversible error. The Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded for consideration of other issues.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• State v. Davis (1984): Provided a model self-defense charge, emphasizing four elements—without fault, actual or apparent imminent danger, reasonableness, and no safe avenue of retreat.
• State v. Fuller (1989): Clarified that Davis is not exclusive; trial courts must tailor self-defense charges to case facts and may include additional instructions if supported by evidence.
• State v. Marin (2016): Reaffirmed that appellate review looks at the jury charge as a whole and that trial courts need not adopt party-proposed language verbatim.
• State v. Starnes (2000) & State v. Nichols (1997): Distinguished here—those cases involved refusal of any supplemental instruction when the evidence clearly supported it, creating a gap in the instruction.
• Additional cases on jury-charge review: Pittman (2007) on abuse of discretion standard; Mattison (2010) and Patterson (2006) on correctness and completeness of instructions; Adkins (2003) on substance over verbiage.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied well-established principles governing jury instructions. First, an appellate court only reverses for abuse of discretion. Second, instructions must be read together and judged on accuracy and coverage of the law. Third, the Davis instruction is a guideline, not an exhaustive template. Here, the trial court (1) announced it would follow Davis, (2) included four elements of self-defense verbatim, (3) added the no-duty-to-retreat language Hailey requested, and (4) adequately encompassed the principle behind the “equal terms” doctrine—that a defender need not wait until the attacker has equal firepower. Because the requested Hendrix language was substantively covered, refusing the exact formulation was permissible.

Impact

This decision reinforces trial judges’ broad discretion in drafting jury charges, emphasizing substance over form. Parties may still request supplemental instructions, but courts need not adopt precise wording if the legal principle is otherwise present. Future litigants must demonstrate a meaningful omission or confusion—not merely a preference for particular verbiage—to secure reversal. This ruling will likely reduce appeals based on stylistic nuances in jury instructions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Abuse of discretion: A high threshold for reversing a trial court’s decision; the instruction must be plainly unreasonable or arbitrary.
• Self-defense elements: (1) The defender did not provoke the attack; (2) the defender actually or reasonably believed there was imminent threat; (3) the defender’s response was reasonable; (4) the defender had no safe alternative to using force.
• No duty to retreat: In South Carolina, a person facing deadly force need not try to flee if retreat would increase the danger.
• “Equal terms” doctrine: A defender does not have to wait until the aggressor’s weapon is equally ready to fire before resorting to self-defense.

Conclusion

State v. Hailey establishes that a self-defense jury instruction meets constitutional and statutory requirements so long as it accurately defines the law and is coherent as a whole. Trial courts are afforded discretion in phrasing, and parties cannot compel the adoption of precise language if the underlying legal principles are sufficiently conveyed. This decision underscores the judiciary’s focus on substantive accuracy over mere verbal conformity, streamlining jury-charge disputes and reinforcing the proper standard for appellate review.