Brower v. State
334 Ga. App. 262
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Connie Brower and her husband Robbie entered an attorney’s office, restrained staff, displayed a hoax bomb, and held the attorney and staff for hours before surrendering; Connie was charged with multiple counts including kidnapping, possession of a hoax device, terroristic threats, and possession of a knife during a felony.
- At a pretrial hearing the State moved to exclude expert testimony that Connie suffered from PTSD and would present that diagnosis to negate intent; Connie abandoned a battered-woman’s-syndrome affirmative defense but sought to introduce PTSD evidence to show diminished capacity for intent.
- Connie’s proffered expert, Dr. Marti Loring, testified in a voir dire that she diagnosed Connie with PTSD after interviews and testing and would say PTSD can trigger impaired judgment, desperate actions, and belief that extreme steps were necessary to protect her husband.
- The trial court granted the State’s motion in limine and excluded the expert PTSD testimony, reasoning it would invade the jury’s province, merely duplicate the defendant’s testimony, and improperly validate her version of events; the court also found justification or coercion defenses inapplicable.
- On appeal Connie argued exclusion denied her right to present a defense because PTSD evidence was necessary to explain her state of mind and intent. The appellate court affirmed, citing Georgia precedent that excludes mental-condition evidence offered only to negate intent unless an insanity-type defense is raised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of PTSD expert testimony to negate intent | Brower: PTSD evidence explains her state of mind and negates requisite criminal intent | State: PTSD evidence is inadmissible when not offered as insanity/diminished-capacity affirmative defense | Court held exclusion proper — Georgia law bars evidence of mental abnormality to negate intent absent recognized defenses like insanity |
| Whether PTSD testimony would invade jury province | Brower: Expert can explain effects of PTSD beyond lay understanding | State: Expert would improperly tell jury what to believe and validate defendant’s testimony | Court agreed with State; testimony would invade jury factfinding and duplicate defendant’s testimony |
| Applicability of justification/coercion defenses | Brower: PTSD made her feel compelled to act to save husband (implied justification) | State: Facts do not support legal justification or coercion defenses | Court found neither justification nor coercion applied |
| Whether Georgia law permits broader mental-condition evidence | Brower: Modern science supports PTSD relevance to intent | State: Georgia precedent restricts such evidence absent statutory change | Court reaffirmed precedent; any expansion should be by legislature |
Key Cases Cited
- Gresham v. State, 246 Ga. App. 705 (explaining standard of review on appeal and viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Brower v. State, 298 Ga. App. 699 (describing underlying facts of the hostage/hoax-bomb incident)
- Smith v. State, 247 Ga. 612 (expert testimony admissible when conclusions are beyond ken of lay jurors)
- Thompson v. State, 295 Ga. 96 (Georgia precedent excluding mental abnormality evidence to negate intent unless insanity/diminished-capacity defense raised)
- Abernathy v. State, 289 Ga. 603 (mental abnormality not a defense unless it amounts to insanity)
- Paul v. State, 274 Ga. 601 (expert evidence of mental impairment irrelevant to guilt when insanity not asserted)
- Wallace v. State, 248 Ga. 255 (historic statement that mental abnormality short of insanity is not a criminal defense)