Supreme Court Limits Admissibility of Battered Woman Syndrome

State v. Hanks, Minn.S.Ct., 8/1/2012.  Ms. Hanks killed Matthew Albert, whom Justice Meyer, writing for a unanimous court, described as her “romantic partner.”  She shot him in the head.  Here’s why the court thought Albert deserved his “romantic partner” sobriquet:

Albert was not involved in the lives of his children. Albert preferred that Hanks stay at home with the children rather than work outside the home. Albert controlled the family finances and did not give Hanks money. Albert got angry when Hanks went out socially and “wanted [Hanks] socially isolated.” Albert disabled Hanks’s vehicle so she could not drive it. Albert made threats to kill L.G., Hanks, his children, and himself. One of Hanks’s children stated that “Dad hit mom!”

Do you see the romance here?  Here’s how Ms. Hanks recalled the shooting:

Hanks testified that on the day of the shooting, she and Albert were up fighting until four or five in the morning. She was exhausted and felt like her head was “exploding.” When she returned to the house to get her child’s boots, Albert was lying in bed handling the gun, saying that he wanted to be in a safe or better place. Hanks said she did not remember holding the gun or pulling the trigger, but admitted to shooting Albert. She testified that she did not plan or intend to shoot Albert.

Ms. Hanks retained an expert who was prepared to tell the jury that she was a battered woman.  This expert defined battering as “a pattern of physical and psychological coercion that may create ongoing fear of safety among victims.”  Ms. Hanks argued to the trial judge that the expert’s testimony was admissible because it was relevant to the issue of premeditation –did I mention that this was a murder 1 charge – that it would help explain to the jury why Ms. Hanks behaved as she did, including her contradictory statements to the police.  The state cried foul.  The trial court excluded the expert’s testimony, and Justice Meyer said that this exclusion was not an abuse of discretion.

The court narrowly construes past cases on the admissibility of battered woman syndrome to approve the exclusion of this evidence.  Justice Meyer first reads Hennum to limit such defense testimony to a claim of self defense.  State v. Hennum, 441 N.W.2d 793 (Minn. 1989).  She then reads Grecinger to apply only to the state’s efforts to clean up the credibility of a battered woman in the prosecution of her batterer. State v. Grecinger, 569 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. 1997).   These two opinions are actually much more expansive:

Expert testimony on the syndrome is admissible “for the specific purpose of bolstering the defendant's position and lending credibility to her version of the facts.”  State v. Hennum, 441 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Minn. 1989).  It is also admissible to help the jury understand the behavior of a woman suffering from the syndrome, including staying in a relationship, not reporting abuse and changing accounts of the abuser’s actions; that conduct “might otherwise be interpreted as a lack of credibility.”  State v. Grecinger, 569 N.W.2d 189, 195 (Minn. 1997). 

Appellant’s Brief.  Such information is also helpful in understanding “counterintuitive behaviors commonly associated with” battered woman syndrome.  State v. Obeta, 796 N.W.2d 282, 291 (Minn. 2011).

Hanks testified that on the day of the shooting, she and Albert were up fighting until four or five in the morning. She was exhausted and felt like her head was “exploding.” When she returned to the house to get her child’s boots, Albert was lying in bed handling the gun, saying that he wanted to be in a safe or better place. Hanks said she did not remember holding the gun or pulling the trigger, but admitted to shooting Albert. She testified that she did not plan or intend to shoot Albert.  Her expert would have offered these insights into this behavior:

[B]attered or controlled women may give contradictory versions about what happened, which is the case here.  The defendant originally denied shooting the victim and later admitted to it. The expert in this case will testify that battered/controlled women, after years of abuse, can suddenly “explode” and act out without thinking or planning-thus negating premeditation, which is a possible explanation of what occurred here.  (It is also possible that the testimony of the expert combined with the testimony of lay witnesses, may establish a factual basis for manslaughter).
In essence, expert testimony is necessary to provide an honest and true version of the characteristics and traits of battered women syndrome victims.

The court affirms Ms. Hanks’ sentence of life without possibility of release.