We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2
The Supreme Court of South Carolina
Freddie Eugene Owens, Brad Keith Sigmon, Gary
DuBose Terry, and Richard Bernard Moore,
Respondents-Appellants,
v.
Bryan P. Stirling, in his official capacity as the Director
of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, South
Carolina Department of Corrections, and Henry
McMaster, in his official capacity as Governor of the
State of South Carolina, Appellants-Respondents.
Appellate Case No. 2022-001280
ORDER
In this challenge to the constitutionality of Section 24-3-530 of the South Carolina
Code (Supp. 2023), the circuit court found, among other things, that electrocution
and the firing squad were unconstitutional methods of execution and the denial of
the right to choose between constitutional methods of execution violated Section
24-3-530. The circuit court denied the discovery request by Respondents-
‘Appellants (Inmates) for information on the availability of lethal injection.
Inmates and Appellants-Respondents (the State) appealed. This Court reversed the
circuit court's denial of Inmates’ discovery request and remanded the matter to the
circuit court to allow the parties to conduct discovery on the lethal injection issue.
The remainder of the appeal was held in abeyance pending the circuit court's
resolution of the discovery issue. Owens v. Stirling, 438 S.C. 352, 361, 882 S.E.2d
858, 862-63 (2023).
Now that the South Carolina Department of Corrections has been able to obtain
drugs for lethal injections, the State moves to lift the abeyance, dismiss the case,
and vacate the order of the circuit court. We deny the motion to dismiss the case
and the motion to vacate the order of the circuit court. We grant the motion to lift
the abeyance. We vacate the portion of our opinion remanding the case to the circuit court.
In light of the recent amendments to Section 24-3-580 of the South Carolina Code
(Supp. 2023) (the Shield Statute), we find it necessary to revisit the underlying
issues in this matter. Accordingly, this Court will rehear arguments on the merits
of the appeal from the order of the circuit court, including any arguments as to the
effect of the Shield Statute on the merits, on February 6, 2024.
Should the parties wish to amend their briefs to include arguments related to the
Shield Statute, the following schedule shall be followed. The State shall serve and
file an amended Appellants’ brief by 5:00 p.m. on November 27, 2023. Inmates
shall serve and file an amended Respondents’ brief by 5:00 p.m. on December 27,
2023. Any amended reply brief shall be served and filed by 5:00 p.m. on January
8, 2024. No extensions shall be permitted.
Columbia, South Carolina
October 81_, 2023
ce:
William Grayson Lambert, Esquire
Thomas Ashley Limehouse, Jr., Esquire
Erica Wells Shedd, Esquire
Daniel Clifton Plyler, Esquire
James Terry Roach v. Warden Joseph Martin, Central Correctional Institution Columbia, South Carolina, and T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General For South Carolina, 757 F.2d 1463, 4th Cir. (1985)
Anthony Green v. William D. Catoe, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections Charles M. Condon, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, 220 F.3d 220, 4th Cir. (2000)
Oscar Bethea v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, James Townsend v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, 417 F.2d 504, 10th Cir. (1969)
James W. Wilson v. Jon E. Ozmint, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections Henry Dargan McMaster Attorney General, State of South Carolina, 352 F.3d 847, 4th Cir. (2004)
