Lead Opinion
Vernita Smith, charged with malice murder, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in the shooting death of her husband. The Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s assertion that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to give her requested jury instructions on the battered woman syndrome. Smith v. State,
Defendant testified that her husband beat her repeatedly during the course of their 18-month marriage. He frequently held a gun to her head and threatened to kill her and abscond with her child. On one occasion he choked her until she lost consciousness and had to be revived. Another time he wrapped a lamp cord tightly around her neck and stopped choking her only when her brother appeared and pulled him away. Defendant summoned the police on a dozen
On the day of the shooting, defendant’s husband became enraged with her because he had observed her out visiting with friends. When she returned home, he confronted her, they argued and he struck her in the face, bloodying her mouth. After he continued to hit her and held a metal can over her head in a threatening manner, she grabbed a pistol and fired one shot which entered his arm and lodged in his chest. The victim ran out of the house, and she followed. When she offered to help him get medical attention, he responded, “Bitch, you’re dead.” The victim died sometime later as a result of the gunshot.
An expert in the field of domestic violence testified on behalf of the defense concerning the group of symptoms comprising the battered woman syndrome. This expert had conducted a lengthy assessment of the defendant, determined that she exhibited each of the symptoms, and reached the conclusion that she suffered from the battered woman syndrome.
Smith requested three separate jury charges pertaining to the battered woman syndrome. At the conclusion of the charge conference, the court ruled that it would allow defense counsel to explain in closing argument how defendant’s experiences as a battered woman affected her state of mind at the time of the shooting. But, in reliance on precedent from this Court, defendant’s proposed jury instructions were rejected.
The jury charge included instructions on both murder and voluntary manslaughter. The pattern instruction on justification was given tracking the language of OCGA § 16-3-21 (a). The jury was charged that a person is justified in using force against another person “when and to the extent that she reasonably believes that such . . . force is necessary to defend herself or a third person against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; [and that] a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if that person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to herself or а third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” As for self-defense, the jury was instructed that “a defendant is justified to kill or use force against another person in defense of self or others,” and that the “standard is whether the circumstances were such that they would excite not merely the fears of the defendant, but the fears of a reasonable person.”
Traditionally, the defense of justifiable homicide by self-defense was available only in circumstances where a reasonable person would fear imminent great bodily harm or death — a defendant’s particular characteristics were not taken into consideration in determining if his or her actions were reasonable. Bivins v. State,
In Smith v. State,
Consistent with this concept of the battered person syndrome as an evidentiary component, of the defense of justification, the legislature amended OCGA § 16-3-21 in 1993 (Ga. L. 1993, p. 1716, § 2), by the addition of a new subsection (d). Under OCGA § 16-3-21 (d), if a defendant in a prosecution for murder or manslaughter raises a defense of justification, “in order to establish the defendant’s reasоnable belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary,” the defendant may offer: “(1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased,” and “(2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the bases of the expert’s opinion.” Thus, a defendant who was a prior victim of “family violence or child abuse,” may offer battered person syndrome evidence to illustrate his or her reasonable belief in the imminence of the victim’s use of unlawful force. Chester v. State,
Because a defendant is entitled to a charge explaining the theory of the defense, especially if it is the sole defense, specific instructions on the battered person syndrome are appropriate when warranted by the evidence and requested by defendant. Under the present pattern jury instructions, the jury is directed to apply a reasonable person standard in аssessing self-defense.
We take this opportunity to announce the rule that when a battered person syndrome self-defense claim has been properly established, thе court should give specific jury instructions on justification by self-defense which are tailored to explain how the defendant’s experiences as a battered person affected that defendant’s state of mind at the time of the killing.
In accordance with the foregoing, we now require that a modified jury instruction on justification be given in all battered person syndrome cases, when authorized by the evidence and requested by defendant, to assist the jury in evaluating the battered рerson’s defense of self-defense. In addition to the pattern instruction in the language of OCGA § 16-3-21 (a), it is suggested that such modified instruction read as follows:
I charge you that the evidence that the defendant suffers from battered person syndrome was admitted for your consideration in connection with the defendant’s claim of self-defense and that such evidence relates to the issue of the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief that the use of force was immediately nеcessary, even though no use of force against the defendant may have been, in fact, imminent. The standard is whether the circumstances were such as would excite the fears of a reasonable person possessing the same or similar psychological and physical characteristics as the defendant, and faced with the same circumstances surrounding the defendant at the time the defendant used force.
This rule is to be applied in all cases now in “the рipeline,” i.e., those on direct review or in which a judgment has not yet been rendered. Taylor v. State,
Because the evidence established that Smith suffered from battered person syndrome, she was entitled to a requested jury instruction to explain to the jury the relevancy of such evidence as it related to the reasonableness of her bеlief that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to
Judgment reversed.
Notes
Defendant’s three requested charges were drawn from language by this Court in Smith v. State,
The syndrome has been defined as a series of common characteristics that appear in women who are physically and psychologically abused over an extended period of time by their mate or a dominant male figure in their lives. Johnson v. State,
Although the present case involves a woman who has been subjected to continuous abuse by her mate, in Chester v. State,
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when, and to the extent that, he/she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself/herself or a third person against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if that person reаsonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself/herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II: Criminal Cases (2nd ed.), p. 43 (July 1991).
To the extent that Chester, supra; Smith, supra,
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I agree with the majority to the extent that it holds that, in a proper case, the trial court should give a charge on the battered person syndrome. I also agree with the majority as to the phraseology of the charge which should be given. However, I cannot agree with the majority that the judgment in this case should be reversed and, accordingly, I must respectfully dissent.
As the majority acknowledges, the “battered person syndrome” is not itself a “defense,” but only refers to a certain type of evidence which has some limited relevancy in elucidating a justification defense. In this state, a person is justified in threatening or using force against anothеr “when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force . . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 16-3-21 (a). As our prior cases clearly hold, battered person syndrome evidence is admissible for the limited purpose of illustrating the defendant’s reasonable belief that the victim’s use of unlawful force was imminent, even though the victim’s use of unlawful force was not, in fact, imminent. See also OCGA § 16-3-21 (d). The battered person syndrome cannot cоnstitute a separate “defense,” since no one is ever justified in committing a present homicide because of past physical abuse. The law acknowledges self-defense as justification, but not revenge. However, evidence of past physical abuse can be relevant to show that the defendant had a reasonable, but incorrect, belief in the imminence of additional physical abuse at the hands of the victim and that, therefore, she was presently justified in acting in self-defense. Battered person syndrome evidence is admissible, not as a separate defense, but in connection with a self-defense claim “as evidence of whether [the defendant] acted in fear of [his or] her life. . . .” Sanders v. State,
Because battered person syndrome evidence has a limited evidentiary relevancy, I agree with the majority that, upon the filing of a proper request, the defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed in that regard. See generally Harrell v. State,
Unless a proper request is made, however, it is never error to fail to charge on the limited relevancy of evidence. Harrell v. State, supra. Accordingly, this case must be resolved on the basis of a review of the refused requests made by the defendant. If the defendant made a request similar to the
As the majority notes, the defendant’s three refused requests all were drawn from language in prior opinions of this Court. However, the language employed in an appellate court’s opinion may embody a sound statement of law and still be too argumentative to qualify as an aрpropriate jury instruction. Stull v. State,
Expert testimony regarding the battered woman’s syndrome authorizes a jury to find that, notwithstanding any lapse of time since the husband’s last assault, the defendant honestly was trying to defend herself although her husband was not at the moment physically attacking her.
(Emphasis supplied.) Assuming that this is a correct statement of the law, it nevertheless also is a highly argumentative assertion that the battered person syndrome evidence “authorizes” a finding in favor of the defendant. Unlike the charge now propоsed by the majority, the defendant’s refused request argumentatively focuses upon the battered person syndrome evidence itself, rather than upon the neutral legal principle of the limited relevancy of that evidence to the claim of self-defense. “[A] trial court is not required, ‘even after request, to specifically point out particular evidence in behalf of the defendants which the jury should specially consider.’ [Cit.]” Chester v. State,
While it might properly form a portion of thе argument of counsel, and contains many reasons and suggestions which might have weight with the jury, it would be going outside of the proper limits for the judge to use such language in instructing the jury upon the law of the case.
Miles v. State,
The second of the defendant’s three refused requests was the following:
You are authorized to consider the testimony of an expert witness as to whether or not the defendant suffered from the battered woman syndrome to assist you in evaluating her defense [of] self-defense. In this regard, you may consider the testimony of an expert witness on the battered woman syndrome to help explain why a person suffering from the battered woman syndrome would not leave her mate, would not inform the police, family or friends of her mate’s abusive treatment and would fear aggression against herself.
The first sentence of this refused request is a correct statement of the law. However, the second sentence of this refused request is an argumentative statement as to what the battered person evidence “help[s] explain,” rather than a neutral statement as to the relevancy of that evidence to the claim of self-defense. Although the battered person evidence may “help explain” the enumerated circumstances, those enumerated circumstances are themselves relevant only because they “help the jury evaluate the credibility of defendant’s contention that she had perceived herself in such imminent danger that she shot her husband in self-defense.” Smith v. State,
]The defendant’s third refused request was: “Expert testimony regarding the battered woman syndrome authorizes a jury to find that the defendant honestly believed hеr life was in imminent danger and that her husband was going to kill her.” As previously discussed, this request is argumentative and was, therefore, properly refused. Counsel was free to argue to the jury what the battered person evidence authorized it to find, but the trial court should not instruct the jury that evidence admitted to illustrate the defendant’s claim of self-defense is such evidence as “authorizes” an acceptance of that claim. Chester v. State, supra; Johnson v. State, supra; Miles v. State, supra; Camp v. State, supra.
Therefore, in my opinion, none of the defendant’s three refused requests was perfect and all were, therefore, properly refused. The trial court’s charge, as actually given, was a correct statement of the law of self-defense. Indeed, the trial court even specifically charged that the “evidence of prior difficulties between the defendant and the alleged victim” had been admitted for the limited purpose of illustrating “the state of feeling between the defendant and the alleged victim and the bent оf mind and course of conduct on the part of the defendant.” I do believe that a more elaborative charge on the relevancy of the battered person syndrome evidence, such as the one proposed by the majority, should be given in any case in which it is authorized and requested on or after August 28, 1997. See Renner v. State,