Stephen Bryant, a 44-year-old man convicted for a series of violent crimes that resulted in three deaths in 2004, was executed in South Carolina on 14 November after spending 21 years in custody. His execution marked the third use in 2025 of a rarely employed method that the state recently reinstated after nearly fifteen years of dormancy. Bryant chose this procedure over other available options. He declined to give a final statement, although media outlets noted that his last meal consisted of seafood stir fry and chocolate cake. His death was officially recorded at 6:05 p.m.

Bryant’s conviction stemmed from a sequence of escalating acts in 2004, including unlawful entry, threats, and multiple killings. Court documents recounted disturbing details, such as a handwritten message left at one victim’s home and the experience of a survivor who encountered Bryant during the same period. These events unfolded while Bryant was on probation, contributing to the perception of an intensifying pattern of violence. The case moved through years of appeals and broader legal battles connected to South Carolina’s execution protocols, which had been in limbo due to disputes over lethal injection drug availability.

Throughout the appeals process, Bryant’s legal team attempted to contextualize his behavior by highlighting his difficult upbringing. His attorney, Bo King, argued that Bryant lived with significant developmental and emotional impairments linked to a genetic disorder and long-term prenatal alcohol exposure. These factors, King maintained, affected Bryant’s ability to regulate emotions and form healthy relationships. Although presented as mitigating evidence, the courts ultimately upheld the death sentence. His execution occurred amid South Carolina’s reauthorization of the seldom-used method, which had not been employed nationwide since 2010 before resurfacing in 2025.

Bryant’s execution followed two similar procedures earlier in the year involving Brad Sigmon in March and Mikal Mahdi in April. Sigmon’s execution drew national attention due to the method’s reinstatement, while Mahdi’s case raised questions about medical documentation and procedural transparency. Together, these cases illustrate South Carolina’s central role in the shifting landscape of capital punishment in the United States, where some states confront drug shortages and legal challenges while others revive older or controversial execution methods. Bryant’s story thus reflects both individual tragedy and broader systemic change.