People v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 06 July 1992 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 140339 |
| Citation | 194 Mich.App. 599,487 N.W.2d 822 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Geraldine Margaret WILSON, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Gay Secor Hardy, Sol. Gen., Larry J. Burdick, Pros. Atty., and Mark H. Duthie, Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Daniel R. O'Neil, Mount Pleasant, for defendant.
Criminal Defense Attys. of Michigan by Gail Rodwan, Detroit, and Jeanice Dagher-Margosian, Ann Arbor, amicus curiae.
Before BRENNAN, P.J., and HOLBROOK and McDONALD, JJ.
The people appeal by leave granted from an April 29, 1991, interlocutory order granting defendant's motion in limine regarding the admissibility of expert opinion testimony regarding the "battered spouse syndrome" (BSS). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The issue before this Court is one of first impression and involves the admissibility of expert testimony regarding the BSS in situations where a self-defense claim is raised in a homicide trial. Defendant is charged with open murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.316; M.S.A. Sec. 28.548, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, M.C.L. Sec. 750.227b; M.S.A. Sec. 28.424(2), arising out of the shooting death of her husband. Defendant admits shooting the victim while he slept, but claims she acted in self-defense following forty-eight hours of abuse and death threats and years of battery.
Defendant asserts expert testimony regarding the BSS is essential to her defense, and thus she filed a motion before trial to obtain an advance ruling regarding its admissibility. The people challenged the motion, denying the relevancy of the proposed testimony absent an offer of proof by defendant demonstrating that she was battered during her relationship with her husband and arguing defendant should be required to disclose the identity of the proposed witness. The people further suggested that the testimony, if found admissible, should be limited to a description by the expert of general behavioral patterns attributable to an individual suffering from the syndrome, and should not include expert testimony regarding the ultimate fact whether defendant suffers from the syndrome or whether the shooting resulted therefrom. The trial court entered an opinion and order finding expert testimony regarding the BSS admissible under the following parameters:
[A]n expert qualified in the battered spouse syndrome may testify: (1) to a description of the general syndrome; (2) that the particular behavior of the spouse was characteristic of battered spouse syndrome victims generally; (3) whether the defendant suffers from the syndrome; (4) whether the defendant's act was the result of the syndrome. The expert may not testify that the allegations of battering are in fact truthful or not. Issues of credibility are for the jury.
We agree with the people and find the trial court's holding allowing expert testimony that defendant suffers from this syndrome and that defendant's specific acts are attributable to this syndrome too broad and thus improper.
The decision to admit or deny expert testimony falls within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. People v. Beckley, 434 Mich. 691, 456 N.W.2d 391 (1990). Expert testimony may be received when it is "necessary" or "helpful" to the trier of fact in deciding an issue that is material. 1 MRE 702; Beckley, supra.
Defendant argues expert testimony regarding the BSS will help present her theory of self-defense. In People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482, 456 N.W.2d 10 (1990), our Supreme Court addressed the test for determining whether a person acts in self-defense. In Michigan, a homicide is justified under the theory of self-defense if the defendant "honestly and reasonably believes that his life is in imminent danger or that there is a threat of serious bodily harm." Heflin at 502, 456 N.W.2d 10. A defendant who argues self-defense implies his actions were intentional but that the circumstances justified his actions. Heflin, supra. Thus, defendant argues the jury should consider the fact she suffered from the BSS in evaluating her self-defense claim because it relates to the question whether she reasonably believed her life was in danger. Defendant also argues the evidence is relevant in rebutting the prosecution's claim that she could have left her husband. One court has described the syndrome as follows:
The "battered woman syndrome" generally refers to common characteristics appearing in women who are physically and psychologically abused by their mates. The typical pattern of violence consists of three recurrent phases of abuse: a tension-building stage, characterized by minor abuse; an acute battering stage, characterized by uncontrollable explosions of brutal violence; and a loving respite stage, characterized by calm and loving behavior of the batterer, coupled with pleas for forgiveness. The continued cycle of violence and contrition results in the battered woman living in a state of learned helplessness. Because she is financially dependent on the batterer, she may feel partly responsible for the batterer's violence, she may believe that her children need a father, or fear reprisal if she leaves. The battered woman lives with constant fear, coupled with a perceived inability to escape. Eventually, she comes to believe that her only options are enduring the abuse, striking back, or committing suicide. [Tourlakis v. Morris, 738 F.Supp. 1128, 1134 (S.D.Ohio, 1990), citing Fennell v. Goolsby, 630 F.Supp. 451, 456 (E.D.Pa., 1985).]
We do not believe the average juror is familiar with the complex behavior of a victim of the BSS. 2 Moreover, the majority of jurisdictions favor the admissibility of expert testimony regarding the BSS. See, generally, anno: Admissibility of expert or opinion testimony on battered wife or battered woman syndrome, 18 A.L.R.4th 1153 (1982); Tourlakis v. Morris, supra. Testimony regarding the BSS has been used in other jurisdictions to explain how a battered spouse reacts to the batterer, to explain the reasonableness of the battered spouse's perception that danger or great bodily harm is imminent, and also to rebut the prosecution's inference that the defendant could have left...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stewart
...S.W.2d 439 (Ky.1999); State v. Anaya, 438 A.2d 892 (Me.1981); State v. Smullen, 380 Md. 233, 844 A.2d 429 (2004); People v. Wilson, 194 Mich.App. 599, 487 N.W.2d 822 (1992); State v. Hennum, 441 N.W.2d 793 (Minn.1989); State v. Edwards, 60 S.W.3d 602 (Mo.Ct.App.2001); Boykins v. State, 116 ......
-
Dean v. State
...average juror," and therefore meets the threshold test for admissibility of expert testimony in this state. People v. Wilson, [194 Mich.App. 599, 487 N.W.2d 822 (1992)], supra. FN14. "[P]rosecuting a batterer poses special problems. The battered woman is likely to hide the fact that she is ......
-
State v. Borrelli
...but his testimony focused on a subject that is beyond the knowledge and experience of the average juror. See People v. Wilson, 194 Mich.App. 599, 487 N.W.2d 822, 824 (1992). Commentators have noted that "the research data indicates that potential jurors may hold beliefs and attitudes about ......
-
Com. v. Goetzendanner
...v. State, 408 So.2d 801, 806-807 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982); State v. Anaya, 438 A.2d 892, 894 (Me.1981); People v. Wilson, 194 Mich.App. 599, 604, 487 N.W.2d 822 (Mich.Ct.App.1992); Bechtel v. State, 840 P.2d 1, 6-8 (Okla.Crim.App.1992); Commonwealth v. Stonehouse, 521 Pa. 41, 61-66, 555 A.2d ......
-
Subjective Vulnerabilities or Individualized Realities: The Merits of Including Evidence of Past Abuse to Support a Duress Defense.
...of whether an individual defendant suffers from the syndrome or acted pursuant to it." See id. at 742; see also, e.g., People v. Wilson, 487 N.W.2d 822, 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992) (holding admissibility limited to general description of syndrome, excluding new facts about victim); State v. H......
-
Subjective Vulnerabilities or Individualized Realities: The Merits of Including Evidence of Past Abuse to Support a Duress Defense.
...of whether an individual defendant suffers from the syndrome or acted pursuant to it." See id. at 742; see also, e.g., People v. Wilson, 487 N.W.2d 822, 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992) (holding admissibility limited to general description of syndrome, excluding new facts about victim); State v. H......
-
§ 18.05 Self-Defense: Special Issues
...e.g., Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-916 (2015).[150] See Maguigan, Note 126, supra, at 429-31.[151] E.g., People v. Wilson, 487 N.W.2d 822, 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992); State v. Hennum, 441 N.W.2d 793, 799 (Minn. 1989).[152] E.g., State v. Curley, 250 So. 3d at 248; State v. Kelly, 47......
-
§ 18.05 SELF-DEFENSE: SPECIAL ISSUES
...e.g., Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-916 (2015).[150] . See Maguigan, Note 126, supra, at 429-31.[151] . E.g., People v. Wilson, 487 N.W.2d 822, 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992); State v. Hennum, 441 N.W.2d 793, 799 (Minn. 1989).[152] . E.g., State v. Kelly, 478 A.2d 364, 377 (N.J. 1984).[1......