Grand Jury Impaneled in Scott Spivey Shooting Case

MYRTLE BEACH, South Carolina

A grand jury has been impaneled to formally review the fatal 2023 shooting of Scott Spivey, marking a crucial progression in a case that has centered on the interpretation and application of South Carolina’s self-defense statutes. This significant legal development was confirmed on February 5, 2026, following a direct request from the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office for an outside prosecutor to manage the matter, thereby ensuring an impartial assessment of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Spivey’s untimely death. The summoning of a grand jury, a time-honored mechanism of inquiry, signals a renewed commitment to a thorough examination of the facts, offering a measure of formal scrutiny in a matter deeply affecting human lives.

Grand Jury’s Role and Solicitor’s Appointment

Serving as the entrusted legal steward, Barry Barnette, the 7th Circuit Solicitor for Spartanburg County, has been charged by Attorney General Alan Wilson with the solemn duty of presenting all pertinent evidence to this grand jury. The core function of this judicial body is to meticulously assess the information and findings in the case, ultimately determining whether the evidentiary threshold is met to issue an indictment against any individual for criminal charges. This particular action by the Solicitor’s office follows an earlier, complex determination by the Attorney General’s Office that the state’s comprehensive “Stand Your Ground” law was applicable to the tragic incident. Such legal frameworks, designed to delineate the boundaries of self-defense, often invite careful deliberation regarding individual actions and the broader societal implications of their enforcement.

Details of the 2023 Shooting Incident

The somber events unfolded in September 2023 within the quiet, rural expanses of Horry County, arising from what authorities have characterized as a road-rage encounter. It was during this volatile moment that Charles Weldon Boyd, a proprietor from North Myrtle Beach, is reported to have shot and killed Mr. Spivey. Neither Mr. Boyd nor his passenger, Kenneth Bradley Williams, have faced criminal prosecution concerning the shooting. This absence of criminal charges arose from previous prosecutorial conclusions that their actions fell under the protective ambit of the state’s Protection of Persons and Property Act, commonly known as the “Stand Your Ground” law. The inherent complexities of such cases, where personal safety intersects with the use of deadly force, underscore the profound responsibility of those charged with rendering justice.

Civil Lawsuit and Forthcoming Immunity Hearing

The initial ruling by the Attorney General’s Office in August 2025, which invoked the “Stand Your Ground” defense, effectively precluded immediate criminal charges against Mr. Boyd and Mr. Williams. Yet, this decision did not bring an end to the earnest pursuit of accountability by Mr. Spivey’s grieving family. They have steadfastly continued to pursue civil claims, maintaining that the shooting lacked justification and asserting that the original investigation suffered from significant deficiencies. These persistent allegations of impropriety were so compelling that they catalyzed a distinct corruption inquiry undertaken by the State-level South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), culminating in the regrettable departure of several officials from the Horry County Police Department (HCPD). The ripple effects of such events extend beyond immediate legal outcomes, touching the very institutions meant to safeguard public trust.

Furthermore, the legal landscape surrounding this case is poised for another critical juncture: a pivotal Stand Your Ground immunity hearing, slated for February 17, 2026. This civil proceeding bears immense weight, as a judicial affirmation of immunity would effectively terminate the wrongful death lawsuit initiated by the Spivey family, precluding a full jury trial. In the run-up to this decisive hearing, a notable disagreement has surfaced concerning the scope of forensic data to be extracted from the electronic devices of the defendants. Defense counsel has lodged objections, characterizing the Spivey family’s request for expanded data access as overly broad and an unwelcome intrusion into private domains.

The profound human element in such legal battles, encompassing loss, the quest for truth, and the precise application of law, calls for a patient and discerning gaze. The impaneling of a grand jury, alongside the looming immunity hearing, signifies the deliberative nature of justice. It reminds us that while the facts must be presented with unyielding clarity, the echoes of human experience, of lives irrevocably altered, resonate throughout the proceedings, inviting a quiet reflection on the duties owed to both the living and the departed.