|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
A new batch of court documents in the wrongful death lawsuit filed following the 2023 shooting of Scott Spivey indicates this case has entered its most consequential phase yet — one centered less on disputed narratives and more on what evidence the judge will ultimately consider at an upcoming Stand Your Ground immunity hearing.
The motions, filed this month in the Horry County Court of Common Pleas, arrived as S.C. Circuit Court judge Eugene C. Griffith, Jr. has scheduled a Stand Your Ground hearing for the week of February 17, 2026.
That hearing will determine whether the two men who admitted firing the fatal shots — Charles Weldon Boyd and Kenneth Bradley Williams — are immune from civil liability under South Carolina’s Protection of Persons and Property Act.
As with prior skirmishes in the case, the latest filings underscore a central reality: the outcome may hinge less on what happened on the side Camp Swamp Road just south of the North Carolina border than on what the court agrees to consider when making credibility determinations.
***
DEFINING EVIDENCE BATTLES
The Scott Spivey case has become one of the most scrutinized self-defense disputes in South Carolina, intersecting claims of lawful self-defense with allegations of investigative misconduct by the Horry County Police Department (HCPD). Spivey, a 33-year-old North Carolina insurance adjuster, was shot and killed in September 2023 following a chaotic, miles-long roadside encounter involving two pickup trucks.
Boyd and Williams have consistently maintained they acted in self-defense. Prosecutors agreed, declining to bring criminal charges after concluding the men were immune under the state’s Stand Your Ground law. That decision, however, did not end the matter.
Civil discovery in the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Spivey’s family exposed missing or mislabeled body-camera footage, questions about scene management, and the apparent coaching of Boyd by responding officers — revelations that prompted an investigation by the S.C. Law Enforcement Division (SLED) and the resignation or termination of key Horry County officers. Against that backdrop, judge Griffith was appointed by the South Carolina Supreme Court to preside over the civil case.
Since then, the litigation has been dominated by evidentiary fights, including a closely watched dispute over the admissibility of 911 calls placed by eyewitnesses Blaize Ward and Frank McMurrough — recordings Griffith has signaled he is likely to consider, though with limits.
***
RELATED | ‘STAND YOUR GROUND’ EVIDENCE BATTLE
***
NEW MOTIONS, SAME HIGH STAKES
The latest filings continue that trend — with a particular focus on the deposition of Frank McMurrough (.pdf), one of the only independent eyewitnesses to the shooting who provided contemporaneous accounts to 911 and investigators but has since declined to testify live.
In January, attorneys for the Spivey family formally designated (.pdf) extensive portions of McMurrough’s deposition testimony (.pdf) — along with related exhibits — for use at upcoming hearings. The designations highlight moments where McMurrough described seeing Spivey exit his truck with a firearm, observing Boyd’s position inside his vehicle, and witnessing what he characterized as a sudden eruption of gunfire.
Notably, McMurrough repeatedly acknowledged he could not say who fired first — a point plaintiffs have argued undercuts any claim that the sequence of events was clear or unequivocal.
***
***
The deposition itself reflects the central tension in the case. At times, McMurrough confirmed details contained in his earlier 911 call and written statements. At others, he professed limited memory or declined to expand on prior descriptions, underscoring the challenges posed by witnesses whose most detailed accounts were captured in real time — but not under oath before a judge.
By designating this testimony, plaintiffs are signaling their intent to rely on McMurrough’s sworn statements — and the inconsistencies between his deposition, his 911 call, and police interviews — to challenge the defense narrative at the immunity hearing. The move also tees up a key legal question: how much weight the court should give to deposition testimony and recorded statements when live witnesses are unavailable or unwilling to testify.
At the same time, defense attorneys have continued to press for strict limits on discovery involving sensitive medical and psychiatric records tied to Boyd. While some records are now subject to production under a confidentiality order (.pdf), defense filings (.pdf) asked the court to clarify or modify prior rulings to prevent broader dissemination or use of those materials. Plaintiffs, meanwhile, argue the records may be relevant to credibility, perception, or state of mind — all issues central to a Stand Your Ground determination.
These procedural maneuvers are not academic. Under South Carolina law, a finding of Stand Your Ground immunity bars not only criminal prosecution but civil liability as well — meaning the Spivey family’s lawsuit could end without ever reaching a jury. As a result, every evidentiary decision — from which deposition excerpts are considered to how much weight is given to out-of-court statements — could determine whether the case moves forward at all.
***
RELATED | THE ROADSIDE SHOOTING OF SCOTT SPIVEY
***
WHY FEBRUARY MATTERS
With the immunity hearing now firmly on the calendar, the evidentiary battles have taken on added urgency. Judge Griffith has made clear in prior rulings that Stand Your Ground hearings require credibility assessments, and that he may consider a broad range of evidence — while reserving the right to disregard anything improper.
What remains unsettled is where those evidentiary lines will ultimately be drawn.
Will deposition testimony stand in for live witnesses who have since refused to appear? How much weight will the court give to out-of-court statements, medical records, or investigative materials clouded by alleged police misconduct? And how narrowly or broadly will immunity be applied in one of the state’s most closely watched self-defense cases?
Those questions are now front and center as the case moves toward February.
As the Spivey litigation shifts from discovery disputes to legal gatekeeping, the next phase will be decided not by investigators or jurors — but by a judge weighing a carefully curated record, one motion at a time.
FITSNews will continue tracking every development as the case moves toward what is shaping up to be one of South Carolina’s most consequential Stand Your Ground hearings in recent memory.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
