Kristen Elizabeth Wagner v. State of Florida
240 So. 3d 795
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Kristen Wagner shot her husband in the lower back after a domestic argument; she testified the gun discharged accidentally while she bent to pick up keys.
- Events: argument, physical contact by husband (holding/pushing), Appellant brandished a Ruger .380 pistol to retrieve keys, keys landed a few feet away, husband closed glass front door, gun fired through glass striking husband.
- Appellant retrieved keys, placed gun in car console, returned to the house (without gun) to gather items, took husband’s phone and wallet, then fled; arrested shortly thereafter.
- Charged with attempted first-degree murder with a firearm; jury convicted and court imposed 35 years with a 25-year mandatory minimum.
- Appellant filed multiple notices seeking to introduce battered-spouse syndrome (BSS) evidence; trial court struck the notice and excluded BSS evidence without detailed explanation.
- Defense theory at trial: the shooting was an accident (defense also argued justifiable use of force in jury instructions), not an intentional act based on BSS-related self-defense.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of BSS when defendant claims accident (not self-defense) | BSS evidence was relevant to explain conduct and decision to arm/brandish and to the defendant’s perceptions | BSS is relevant only where self-defense is asserted; irrelevant to accidental-discharge theory | Exclusion correct: BSS evidence immaterial to accident defense and trial court did not err |
| Whether BSS can negate intent/premeditation (diminished-capacity use) | BSS could show inability to form criminal intent, thus relevant to charged offense | Florida law disallows diminished-capacity evidence based on BSS to negate mens rea | Court holds diminished-capacity use of BSS is not permissible under Florida precedent (Chestnut, Mizell) |
| Harmless-error / relevance to reasonableness of arming/brandishing | Even if excluded erroneously, BSS would explain reasonableness of arming and thus affect credibility of accidental-discharge claim | Exclusion (if error) was harmless because BSS bears on why she armed herself, not on whether the discharge was intentional | Any error would be harmless: BSS would not help prove accidental vs. intentional discharge |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. State, 467 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1985) (describes battered-spouse syndrome as repeated domestic abuse leading to psychological effects)
- State v. Hickson, 630 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1993) (BSS evidence admissible to support self-defense claims in crimes against an abuser)
- Chestnut v. State, 538 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1989) (Florida rejects diminished-capacity evidence to negate mens rea)
- State v. Mizell, 773 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reaffirming limits on diminished-capacity evidence)
- State v. Sallie, 693 N.E.2d 267 (Ohio 1998) (BSS evidence immaterial where defendant claimed accidental shooting)