|
View Case
|
|
Cited Cases
|
|
Citing Cases
|
|
Comment (0)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. ALLERY
101 Wn.2d 591 (1984)
The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.
May 17, 1984.
[3] We join with those courts which hold expert testimony on the battered woman syndrome admissible. Smith v. State,247 Ga. 612, 277 S.E.2d 678 (1981); Hawthorne v. State,408 So.2d 801 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982); Ibn-Tamas v. United States,407 A.2d 626 (D.C. 1979). We find that expert testimony explaining why a person suffering from the battered woman syndrome would not leave her mate, would not inform police or friends, and would fear increased aggression against herself would be helpful to a jury in understanding a phenomenon not within the competence of an ordinary lay person. Smith v. State, supra. Where the psychologist is qualified to testify about the battered woman syndrome, and the defendant establishes her identity as a battered woman, expert testimony on the battered woman syndrome is admissible. This evidence may have a substantial bearing on the woman's perceptions and behavior at the time of the killing and is central to her claim of self-defense. State v. Anaya,438 A.2d 892 (Me. 1981). Our holding today is in harmony with our decision in State v. Wanrow, supra. There we held that the jury must consider all the facts and circumstances known to the woman at the time of the killing in evaluating her claim of self-defense. To effectively present the situation as perceived by the defendant, and the reasonableness of her fear, the defense has the option to explain her feelings to enable the jury to overcome stereotyped impressions about women who remain in abusive relationships. It is appropriate that the jury be given a professional explanation of the battering syndrome and its effects on the woman through the use of expert testimony. See Cross, The Expert as Educator: A
Proposed Approach to the Use of Battered Woman Syndrome Expert Testimony, 35 Vand. L. Rev. 741 (1982). IVDefendant also assigns error to the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that she had no duty to retreat at the time of the shooting.2 No duty to retreat exists when one is feloniously assaulted in a place where she has a right to be. State v. Hiatt, 187 Wn. 226, 60 P.2d 71 (1936); State v. Lewis,6 Wn.App. 38, 491 P.2d 1062 (1971). The State argues that no instruction was required because the defendant was in no danger when she shot her husband. [4] A party is entitled to an instruction when there is sufficient evidence in the record to support it. State v. King,92 Wn.2d 541, 599 P.2d 522 (1979). Defendant testified that she was afraid and thought she was in danger when she entered her home and found her husband. She testified he threatened to kill her. Her testimony was sufficient to support the proposed instruction. The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that defendant had no duty to retreat. VFinally, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence concerning a 1975 child custody hearing in Montana involving her relationship with her children. The State argues defendant put her character in issue by testifying that she had been a faithful wife. The evidence of the child custody hearing was, therefore, admissible under ER 404(b).3 We disagree.
1. Defendant proposed the following additional instructions on self-defense:
Instruction 9: "In judging Sherrie Allery's action you should attempt to place yourself in her position at the time of the incident. You should therefore consider her past and present knowledge, her beliefs, the relative size and strength of the participants, Wayne Allery's words and actions prior to the shooting, the history of their marital relationship, and all other factors bearing on the reasonableness of her actions and her apprehensions at the time as they appeared to her." Instruction 17: "In judging Sherrie Allery's actions, you should attempt to place yourself, as a reasonable person, in her position at the time of the incident. You should therefore consider all the facts and circumstances known to her, including those known substantially before the incident." 2. Defendant's proposed instruction 6 stated:
"It is lawful for a woman who is in a place where she has a right to be who has reasonable grounds for believing she is being attacked to stand her ground and defend herself from such an attack. She need not attempt to retreat." 3. ER 404(b) provides:
"Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident."
|
|
|
|
|