State v. Anaya

Decision Date29 December 1981
Citation438 A.2d 892
PartiesSTATE of Maine v. Linda M. ANAYA.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Charles K. Leadbetter, Anita St. Onge (orally), Wayne S. Moss, Herbert Bunker, Asst. Attys. Gen., Augusta, for plaintiff.

Nisbet, MacNichol & Ludwig, Francis M. Jackson (orally), South Portland, for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C. J., and GODFREY, NICHOLS, CARTER, VIOLETTE and WATHEN, JJ.

WATHEN, Justice.

In the Superior Court (Cumberland County), defendant Linda Anaya was found guilty of manslaughter, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 203 (Supp. 1981). Her appeal from this jury verdict assigns numerous claims of error. Since we find that the presiding justice committed reversible error in excluding testimony relating to the "battered wife syndrome," we sustain the appeal and vacate the judgment of conviction.

I.

On April 9, 1980, shortly after midnight, Brunswick Police responded to a report of a stabbing at the defendant's apartment. They found Frank Williams, defendant's lover, lying on the floor unconscious while defendant stroked his head and talked to him. He died shortly thereafter. The cause of death was determined to be a knife wound in the back which severed the aorta. The evidence proving that defendant stabbed the deceased was overwhelming and she has not contested this fact on appeal.

Frank Williams moved into defendant's apartment in mid-November, 1979, approximately five months before his death. In December, soon after Williams moved out of the apartment, Linda Anaya cut her wrists and was treated at the local hospital. Williams returned to the apartment the next day.

On February 7, 1980, defendant's roommate, Pam Davis, called the police twice to intervene in domestic problems. First, Frank Williams cut his wrist and Davis called for help, but he refused it, saying "Aren't I cute?" Later on during that evening, Davis apparently called the police again because Williams had pushed and kicked the defendant and held a knife to defendant's throat, threatening to kill her. He had also chased Davis while threatening her with a hammer. At some point, Williams received a knife wound in the back and claimed that defendant had stabbed him. Defendant received some bruises and, according to Davis, had to be treated for a concussion.

In March, 1980, defendant was treated for face and head injuries caused by Frank Williams. Life at the apartment was "like a madhouse" at this time. Williams had threatened to kill defendant it she left him and she appeared to be frightened. At the end of March, defendant attempted to commit suicide. On April 5, 1980, Williams and the defendant sustained cuts on their arms from a chisel. Defendant received a deep wound inflicted by Williams. During these months there were many fights and usually Williams was the aggressor.

Pam Davis was in the apartment on the night of Williams' death. She testified that Williams was quite intoxicated, that the couple argued, and that Williams pushed the defendant around. After five or ten minutes of fighting, Davis heard nothing. Twenty minutes later she heard Williams leave the kitchen and go to the bedroom where he and the defendant were found by the police.

An indictment against the defendant was returned by the grand jury (Cumberland County) on May 6, 1980, charging defendant with the murder of Frank Williams. Counsel was appointed for Ms. Anaya after she was found indigent. The defendant entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. The latter plea was withdrawn before trial. Defendant made several pre-trial motions, including two motions to dismiss the indictment; a motion for copies of jury lists and questionnaires, and a motion for appointment of experts. All were denied.

Trial began on December 1, 1980, in Superior Court, Cumberland County. Defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal entered after the State rested and again after the defendant rested were denied. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter on December 8, 1980. Defendant's timely motion for a new trial, alleging seven errors, was denied on January 29, 1981, and this appeal followed seasonably.

II.

At trial, defendant called to the stand Dr. John Bishop, an experienced and qualified psychologist. After an extensive voir dire conducted in the absence of the jury, the trial justice ruled that although Dr. Bishop was qualified to testify about the "battered wife syndrome," the evidence would be excluded as irrelevant, prejudicial, and confusing to the jury. The doctor's testimony would have described his profession's analysis of the behavior and emotional patterns of women suffering from repeated physical abuse inflicted by their husbands or lovers. He characterized abuse as a cyclical process involving three phases: (1) a build-up of tension in the relationship, (2) the occurrence of violent acts, and (3) a reduction in tension. Dr. Bishop also discussed the psychological and environmental factors which contribute to the individual male's disposition towards abuse.

Defendant, later on during the trial, attempted to introduce evidence that she was a victim of the battered wife syndrome. Dr. Myron Krueger, a specialist in internal medicine, testified that he had treated the defendant at least five times for injuries which included a concussion, a black eye, and a laceration in her arm. The presiding justice refused to allow defense counsel to question the doctor about the battered wife syndrome, stating that the evidence was irrelevant and without foundation. The record shows that Dr. Krueger would have stated that he had occasionally seen persons he believed to be victims of the battered wife syndrome and that in his opinion defendant was one of these victims. Defense counsel again moved to introduce Dr. Bishop's testimony unsuccessfully.

Although the defendant did not testify, the record clearly shows that she was relying on a theory of self-defense or provocation 1 to mitigate or justify her conduct. In closing argument, defense counsel admitted that Linda Anaya killed Frank Williams intentionally or knowingly but asserted that defendant acted reasonably to protect herself from another beating. The State's closing argument focused on the "bizarre" behavior of the victim and the defendant, implying that defendant could not have been fearful of Williams since she never attempted to leave him, and suggesting that the injuries received by defendant over the course of several months were part of a loving game, not attempts to commit suicide or the result of physical abuse. Thus, the jury's characterization of the evidence concerning their relationship would have been a crucial factor in deciding whether defendant was guilty of murder or manslaughter or not guilty because her acts were committed in self-defense.

On appeal, we will reverse a decision based on M.R.Evid. 403 to exclude evidence only if the trial justice abused his discretion in so deciding, State v. Hinds, Me., 437 A.2d 191 (1981). Interpreting the decision below as one based on Rule 403, we find such an abuse of discretion. Both Dr. Bishop's and Dr. Krueger's testimonies were highly probative and more helpful than confusing to the jury. The record shows that Dr. Bishop would have testified that abused women often continue to live with their abusers even though beatings continue, and that a certain substrata of abused women perceive suicide and/or homicide to be the only solutions to their problems. This evidence would have given the jury reason to believe that the defendant's conduct was, contrary to the State's assertions, consistent with her theory of self-defense. We agree with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and various commentators, 2 that where the psychologist is qualified to testify about the battered wife syndrome, and the defendant establishes her identity as a battered woman, expert evidence on the battered wife syndrome must be admitted since it "may have ... a substantial bearing on her perceptions and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • State v. Kelly
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • July 24, 1984
    ...petition for review denied, 415 So.2d 1361 (Fla.1982); Smith v. State, 247 Ga. 612, 277 S.E.2d 678 (1981); State v. Anaya, 438 A.2d 892 (Me.1981); State v. Allery, 101 Wash.2d 591, 682 P.2d 312 (Wash.Sup.Ct.1984); see also People v. Minnis, 118 Ill.App.3d 345, 74 Ill.Dec. 179, 455 N.E.2d 20......
  • Jahnke v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1984
    ...subject of street-gang customs was approved in People v. McDaniels, 166 Cal.Rptr. 12, 107 Cal.App.3d 898, 904-905 (1980). In State v. Anaya, Me., 438 A.2d 892 (1981), the Maine Supreme Court found that the trial court committed reversible error in excluding testimony related to the battered......
  • Com. v. Dillon
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1991
    ...478 A.2d 364 (1984); State v. Hennum, 441 N.W.2d 793 (Minn.1989); State v. Allery, 101 Wash.2d. 591, 682 P.2d 312 (1984) and State v. Anaya, 438 A.2d 892 (Me.1981), appeal after remand, 456 A.2d 1255 (Me.1983). As stated, the question before this Court is whether we should permit expert tes......
  • State v. Stewart
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • October 21, 1988
    ...v. State, 408 So.2d 801 (Fla.Dist.App.), rev. denied 415 So.2d 1361 (Fla.1982); Com. v. Rose, 725 S.W.2d 588 (Ky.1987); State v. Anaya, 438 A.2d 892 (Me.1981); State v. Gallegos, 104 N.M. 247, 719 P.2d 1268 (App.1986); People v. Torres, 128 Misc.2d 129, 488 N.Y.S.2d 358 (1985); State v. Lei......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • State v. Riker, Battered Women Under Duress: the Concept the Washington Supreme Court Could Not Grasp
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 19-02, December 1995
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Craig, 783 S.W.2d 387 (Ky. 1990); State v. Burton, 464 So. 2d 421 (La. Ct. App.), writ denied, 468 So. 2d 570 (1985); State v. Anaya, 438 A.2d 892 (Me. 1981); Commonwealth v. Moore, 514 N.E.2d 1342 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987); State v. Hennum, 441 N.W.2d 793 (Mich. 1989) (sleeping husband case......
  • The Battered Woman Syndrome and the Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Utah
    • United States
    • Utah State Bar Utah Bar Journal No. 5-3, May 1992
    • Invalid date
    ...Ibn-Tamas v. United States, 407 A.2d 626 (D.C. 1979); Commonwealth v. Stonehouse, 521 Pa. 41, 555 A.2d 772 (1989). [25] State v. Anaya, 438 A.2d 892 (Me. 1981). [26] People v. Torres, 128 NY 129, 488 N.Y.S.2d 358 (1985). [27] People v. Aris, 215 Cal.App.3d 1178, 264 Cal.Rptr. 167 (1989) (ap......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT