*1 169 to his home he lured the victim rape and because kidnapping convicted of both her). raping deception before comparison an abstract Thus, directing Ranee test the one-size-fits-all of commission of the factual differences the manner
elements failed to consider actor and never allowed two it factored the conduct of the offenses because never cases.6 allied in some cases but not allied other offenses to be stated, and remand I concur in the decision to reverse For the reasons consideration, syllabus. I concur in the this matter for further and J., foregoing opinion. concurs Lundberg Stratton, R. Deters, Attorney, Phillip and County Prosecuting T. Hamilton Joseph Prosecuting Attorney, appellee. Cummings, Assistant Gutierrez, for Lindsey appellant. R. Law Offices of Ravert J. Clark Taylor, L. O’Brien, Attorney, Franklin and Steven County Prosecuting Ron Franklin affirmance for amicus curiae Prosecuting Attorney, urging Assistant Attorney. County Prosecuting Defender, Masters, Assistant Jeremy J.
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, Public Defender. urging Public reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Appellant. Goff, Ohio, Appellee,
The State
v.
Goff,
[Cite as State v.
169,
{¶ 1} a a psychiatric by defendant to submit to examination conducted a state expert response raising supported by expert defense of self-defense testimony on battered-woman syndrome right against violates the defendant’s 10, self-incrimination under Section Article I of the Ohio Constitution and Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude such However, order does not right against violate defendant’s self-incrimination. preserve self-incrimination, we also hold a defendant’s right against examination of subsequent the defendant and the from the state’s expert must be limited to information related to battered-woman whether the defendant’s actions were affected by syndrome. Since the limited, examination and expert this case were not so we hold that the rights defendant’s under Section Article I of the Ohio Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated. Background
Factual and Procedural 18, 2006, On March at approximately 7:00 p.m., defendant-appellant, {¶2} Goff, called Megan County just Lawrence 9-1-1. had estranged She shot her husband, Goff, William 15 times in his head and upper body, emptying two guns. pleaded She for help, claiming William, that she was frightened lying shared, motionless on the floor of the they home once would somehow kill her. 28, 2006, Goff was charged indicted on March with one count of 3}{¶ aggravated murder with a firearm specification connection with the death of trial, state, her husband. pleaded guilty. Goff Prior to knowing present Goff intended to evidence on battered-woman bolster self- theory, moved trial court to order Goff to submit to a psychiatric examination the state’s if expert. objected. Goff The trial court ruled that matter, brought the defense in an then the state was also entitled to offer “If expert testimony: going bring the Defendant is to talk experts mind, etc., about the Defendant’s state then the state should have the opportunity to rebut that.” Phillip state’s Dr. expert, Goff submitted to an examination Cleveland, in the of her presence interviewed Goff in person
Resnick. Resnick had an hours 40 minutes on 2006. He attorney, August for seven pre- with Resnick follow-up by telephone. additional 18-minute interview pared 35-page report. visiting judge, was tried to a right jury, Goff waived her case to allow the state’s to examine Goff. ruling
who had not made the earlier Goff testified on her own behalf. history They about her with had met Goff testified troubled William. him; she and door to he was about and she was parents
when moved next They a sexual when she was 17 and were married when began relationship school. graduated high Goff testified that William was to her emotionally throughout abusive *3 do, seven-year marriage. their When she did not do what he ordered her to he 2004, gun. By would threaten her with a she felt that she was not allowed to go outside of the to the anything. house There were times when he shoved her head; floor and held a to her gun high thought he would ask her how she would go doing thought blood once he shot her. She worked hard at what she him keep would calm but found that what had worked in the was not past working anymore. worsened, began December the emotional abuse and William
{¶ 8} 18, 2006, Goff that kill telling going January he was her and the children. On children, the situation escalated: William became abusive to their physically son, their and pushing daughter kicking recovering their who was from abdominal incident, surgery, the stomach. After that Goff called the sheriffs department. house, A call deputy responding guns many removed 63 from the of them arrested, loaded. William was jail January but was released from on day, That same a civil protection Goff obtained order. home, Goff and the children left at a staying briefly their shelter for
{¶ 9} violence; they victims of domestic moved from place place because Goff feared that William would find them. that tracking Goff believed he was their where- Goff, abouts. in a According telephone March conversation with William, he told her that he was to kill her and the children on going Monday, March 20. The March 20 date was it was significant relationship because intercourse, the date when the two first had as being as well Goffs mother’s birthday. Goff, guns, alone but armed with two returned to the marital residence
{¶ 10} thought harming on March 18. She she could talk Goff out of the children. She testified, me, “I I just knew him. love him. I knew if he could see he would calm what, I say to see his face so that knew what words to just down. needed that would calm down.” say how to them so he home, that when she entered the William told her he was Goff testified
{¶ 11} that he the children to kill her and the children. He indicated knew where going leave, testified, kept repeating, asked to “You’re staying. were When she your so are kids.” She claimed that she saw a look on his face dead woman and her, believing kill that he would kill going that led her to believe he was children, she shot him. Miller, on Bobby psychiatrist, Dr. a forensic testified Goffs behalf. He times. He testified about the abusive nature of the had interviewed Goff six general. Goffs’ and about battered-woman He relationship stated concluded, had opinion symptoms Goff offense, consequence “At the time of the as a of Mrs. Goffs a victim alleged being abuse, reasonably of marital she had reason to believe and believed that she and danger physical injury.” her children were imminent of death or serious He to that opinion degree probability. testified to reasonable medical objected Resnick testified for the state. to his testimony Goff on the right against basis his examination of her violated her self-incrimination. objected counsel during Goffs stated he had also the examination when Resnick began discussing day shooting. repeated the events of the He objection at trial. The court ruled: is, being fully “The Court advised as to what the law the Court is rely on—I assume we had a going hearing Judge. this before the other “ * * * *4 “Pm going to sustain the ruling prior proceed Court with the {¶ 16} * * start, From the Resnick just syn- testified not about battered-woman {¶ 17} drome, but about in what him in inconsistencies Goff told her interview compared to what he had seen in the investigatory state’s materials. Resnick outlined those inconsistencies at the state’s urging: “Q. inconsistencies, go please. And ahead and tell us about those
{¶ 18} Well, all, “A. All right. first of there is some her dispute between versions of events and other versions of events. For she that example, told me Mr. Goff had threatened to kill her and the children on multiple occasions. Mr. Goff, 18th, police January when interviewed on denied that he had reported threatened her. Ms. Goff to me that on March 17th Mr. explicitly Goff asked, said, kill during phone you threatened to her a 6:00 P.M. call. I ‘Are sure that call?’ that was that might’ve been earlier She said she certain had threatened to kill her and the children at the 6:00 P.M. call. explicitly phone were witnesses to that P.M. call who Mr. phone reported There 6:00 that Goff did any not make threats. Additional had to do with inconsistencies statements she gave police March 18th events me on compared August she told * * * 18th. The first was that she that in the the police said statement to she did that not indicate her intention was to miss scare her not husband shooting me, to hit him. In gave the account she said that the two she first shots she her goal reality, fired was to scare him and not to hit his all body. fifteen shots she fired based on did strike her husband. Final autopsy [the] had inconsistency police to do with the she to the gave statement on March 18th. In that time she said that fired she when her husband turned around toward the me, window after the In the first shot. account she she that gave said after first walking explanation why shot her husband was toward her as an she continued to shoot. “ * * * “Q. And also reference to her report you, addition to 21}
{¶ inconsistency going moving of ahead with the on the up porch, the statement she made to you long there was the heard gun incident and the safe tumbling, your it understanding was that that not was contained her statement police on the night the murder as well? “A. That’s correct. did not the police. She mention 22}
{¶ “Q. not, also in your report, She mentioned she that he grabbed did her 23} {¶ pulled arm and her in the house? me, “A. That is the version she and that gave also was different from police reports where said she walked in.” Resnick also testified as to his doubt that Goff feared her husband as
much as she claimed. Resnick testified that told him that Goff had she was intensely fearful husband that there were four items that him caused question “to degree intensity of her fear”: “The first of these was that Goff alleged when Mr. new make 17th, threats on homicide, March one day before the that he planned to kill her the following Monday, children which would be March 20th. That rather than involve the police notify or police these new threats in violation of the Order, Protection she instead decided that she go would alone to her husband’s home to talk try him out of it. That does seem with being consistent Secondly, terrified of him. family rather than involve and get their advice or *5 protection, consciously she instead lied to her left grandmother, the children with them and then went her secretly to husband’s home Thirdly, alone. she said she initially planned unarmed, to approach though home even told that she me two spied weeks earlier she had on her husband her father’s house and had she said that when Finally, Ms. Goff carry rifles into home. him two seen 18th, she on March that about to enter knocking on door porch, on the was of getting gun out was her husband which she assumed creaking sound heard with the confronta- flee, proceeded and than she continued Rather gun safe. tion.” to the victim’s house initially that she went explained that Goff He noted 27}
{¶ him, if simply to scare weapons the two him kill and that she took to let her home, she initiated to his fact that she went He testified: “[T]he needed. on the and tone of the conversation of calls exchanges phone some of him. not that she is terrified suggest of the call does taped portion 4March home, I way goes the fact that she to in a assertive and speaks fairly She reports.” is as terrified as she said, suggest seem to she already doesn’t syn- symptoms of battered-woman the ultimate issue whether On 28} {¶ William, imminent harm from Resnick legitimately Goff to fear drome caused degree within a reasonable medical opinion that he could not form explained credibility. determine Goffs He stated he could not certainty, partly because upon credibility Goffs statements: report that his entire rested I’m a forensic evaluation such “In circumstances when asked do many medical insanity, categorical opinion I will reach with reasonable as for case, I I with reasonable opinion did not feel could reach an certainty. this it certainty depend upon of reasons. One was would couple medical terrified of her actually was believed about whether she was whether Ms. Goff husband, I I position judgment. did not feel was in best make that I will not have. hearing will have the benefit other His Honor try lay I simply I did feel I could reach an So what did opinion. So at the the ultimate ways as I could to look case allow clearly out as different I what synthesize tried to the various proper trier fact make decision. [of] me, give potential explana- told what the showed and some she had record [sic] true, tions, to which of I could not conclude with reasonable medical those certainty.” why had possible Dr. then offered reasons Goff shot Resnick
husband: acted in the moment she fired she may anger “Ms. Goff have because telling guts her that she lacked the laughing her husband was
said that her husband Specifically, police him. she said her statement shoot said, You shoot me. You don’t have you know won’t shoot me. won’t ‘[“]You face, telling me he was gun laughing my and he was guts.[”] up So lifted it the first time then wouldn’t pulled to kill the and that’s when I kids going girl, was a little she was told every since she pull again.’ [sic] She said when brought in from her earlier molester guts and she also had didn’t have
175 So, she was child at she in I think laughed pain. also her when was one possibility time, is that rather than in imminent at being actually fear she was just so angry challenged so and so ridiculed that she chose to fire because he at have, was her and her in laughing challenging opposed being as fear. I do is,6 another possibility actually Number that she was in fear of being described, immediately harmed. The second is that she if her possibility account value, husband, is taken at face may she shot her in anger have husband because he had in engaged controlling behavior and made allegedly previous words, threats toward her and In the children. other it was as anger opposed imminent fear. The possibility third also involved she anger because in helpless found herself position and this reminded her when felt that she she was in a helpless while position being gun molested at point as child. The possibility strike, fourth is a that is preemptive separate, that is in being [sic] fear, imminent but just deciding that even though she believed that her husband was going just come after her two later days Monday, on she decided that she go time, would ahead kill her husband at that in rather than imminent being fear. Then the final one possibility is the in she deed belief [sic] that, it, she was immediate fear and as described that her husband gun would take the if she didn’t shoot him she would be killed.” In his closing argument, the prosecutor back to report, 32} went Resnick’s {¶ pointing out inconsistencies in Goffs version of events: “We Resnick gave fact, everything we had. I think the other man had like nine or ten items listed that he report consulted. Forty-four. gave We him witness * * statements, gave we him *. He everything asked her specifically page he you said, ‘Did threaten at 6:01 ‘Yeah, on the 17th?’ She threatened me and the kids.’ That’s not true. That is not true. important. you That’s How can anything?” believe day testified, The after Resnick the court its issued decision from the
bench, immediately after closing
finding
arguments,
guilty
Goff
of aggravated
appealed.
murder. Goff
The Fourth District
Appeals
Court of
affirmed
conviction. On the
issue
trial court’s order compelling
undergo
Goff to
evaluation,
psychiatric
held,
the court
initially
“Because Goff
retained her own
psychiatrist
undergo
(battered
an evaluation to prove her mental condition
syndrome)
woman
part
of her defense before the
granted
court
the State’s
* *
*
request
psychiatric
claim,
its
examination to rebut Goffs
we
find that
use of her
psychiatric
Goffs
own
privilege
trial waived her
against
¶
Law and Cases Syndrome Testimony A. on Battered-Woman Expert Self-Defense allowing justification” or not establish a new defense This court “[did] syndrome for the expert testimony regarding the admission of *7 970, (1990), 213, paragraph 49 St.3d 551 N.E.2d v. Koss Ohio first time State Rather, testimony on battered- expert this held that syllabus. three the court of one of self-defense. prove is as evidence to element syndrome woman admissible to prove that a defendant requires an affirmative defense Self-defense is {¶ 36} “(1) at the was not of the defendant by preponderance evidence: three elements (2) situation, that the had a bona fide belief the violent creating fault in only harm and that her great bodily of death or danger was in imminent she (3) not force, and that the defendant did violate was the use of escape means of (1997), Ohio v. Thomas 77 St.3d danger.” or avoid the State any duty retreat 323, 1339; 326, 2901.05. 673 N.E.2d R.C. Koss, testimony syndrome to be court found on battered-woman this
{¶ 37} is, self-defense, the the of that to “assist in relation to second element appropriate out of an that fact the defendant acted honest belief trier of to determine whether the of great bodily of death or harm and that use danger imminent [was] Koss, 213, 551 N.E.2d escape.” such force was her means of 49 Ohio St.3d noted that Ohio has syllabus. three of the The court since paragraph this self-defense, “the state of mind is crucial to subjective test for defendant’s testimony syndrome on battered-woman Expert defense.” Id. at 215. witness syndrome general, of but could only help could not triers fact understand they comprehend: them a state of mind that help might also understand “ testimony syndrome help dispel woman would ‘Expert battered battering relationship that a in a is ordinary lay person’s perception woman any any counter “common free to leave at time. The evidence would really if jury beatings were that bad sense” conclusions left much about Popular misconceptions woman would have her husband earlier. rest, are put including the beliefs that the women battered women would be they intentionally their beatings provoke and that enjoy masochistic and (1979).’ Walker, Woman, 19-31 rage. husbands into fits of See The Battered also, 63, 68-69, See, v. (1986), Kan. 716 P.2d Smith Hodges 239 State [1981, 618-619, [678]; 247 277 Hawthorne State 612] [v. State Ga. S.E.2d [1985, 801]; Torres 128 Misc.2d 133- (Fla.App.1982), [People v.] 129] So.2d Id. at 216. 488 N.Y.S.2d [358].” Koss, in R.C. 2901.06 Assembly recognized After the General of scientific knowl- syndrome commonly accepted “is matter battered-woman within the syndrome of are not edge” subject and that “the matter and details general understanding or of a experience person general who is a member of the 2901.06(A)(1) are populace and not within the field of common knowledge.” R.C. (A)(2). 2901.06(B) R.C. testimony establishes that is available defendants to establish that they suffered proving
furtherance of self-defense: “If person is with an charged involving offense the use of force against another the person, as a defense to charged, the offense raises the affirma- self-defense, tive of the person may expert testimony introduce of the woman syndrome’ ‘battered expert testimony person suffered from requisite evidence to establish the belief an danger imminent of death or great bodily necessary, harm that as an element the affirmative defense, justify person’s use of the force in question. The introduction of any expert under this division shall be accordance with the Ohio Rules Evidence.” provides Thomas an example type expert might *8 in
present
syndrome
self-defense case where battered-woman
is
factor.
Thomas, the defendant’s expert explained
symptoms
the classic
of
signs
syndrome
battered-woman
and then described her examination of the defendant.
expert
The
testified that she diagnosed
suffering
Thomas as
from battered-
syndrome
woman
and stated her
that
opinion
reasonably
Thomas
believed
she was in danger of imminent death or
bodily
serious
harm at the time of the
Thomas,
shooting.
325,
77 Ohio
at
St.3d
testimony plays a vital role in proving one element of the question defense. The we face here whether both sides should have the opportunity to examine a defendant who claims that she suffers from battered-woman or wheth- er constitutional guarantees against self-incrimination discovery should limit regarding to the expert. defendant’s
B. Compelled Psychiatric Examinations Involving Cases Syndrome
Battered-Woman 10, Section Article I provides, person Ohio Constitution “No shall ** compelled, case, be in any criminal be a against witness himself This echoes essentially identical language the Fifth Amendment to the United Constitution, States applicable made through states the Fourteenth (1964), 6,1, Amendment. v. Malloy Hogan 1489, 378 U.S. 84 12 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 653. The essence of this basic constitutional principle requirement “is the * * * produce the State against by the evidence independent [the defendant] officers, labor its by simple, expedient cruel it from own forcing 581-582, 568, 1860, 6 (1961), 81 S.Ct. U.S. v. lips.” Culombe Connecticut L.Ed.2d part mental status as her uses her But when defendant 44}
{¶
affect,
in a
even
expert,
her own
does she
by
in an examination
cooperates
factual issue of
Must the
fashion,
right
self-incrimination?
against
her
limited
scrutiny?
adversarial
subject meaningful
her mental status be
case,
Ohio
State v.
one
have been addressed
These issues
45}
{¶
(1991),
Manning,
dant’s
Amendment
ease,
testified at trial. As
this
tion
state and the state’s
by the
case;
testified
the nub of
Manning’s expert’s
addressed
harm
of imminent
to either
Manning
bodily
believed that
fear
Dr.
testified in
or her child at the time she shot her husband.
Resnick
herself
held,
introduces
Manning
psychiatric
The court
“When defendant
rebuttal.
issue,
here,
of mind
she can be
places
directly
evidence and
state
independent
psychiatrist.
submit to
examination
a state
See
compelled to
a[n]
(1987),
402, 422-424,
2917-2919,
107 S.Ct.
Kentucky
Buchanan v.
483 U.S.
49;
(C.A.11, 1989),
336, 355;
Silagy
877 F.2d
v.
Isley Dugger
97 L.Ed.2d
*9
986,
24,
at
in
(C.A.7, 1990),
F.2d
1005.” Id.
{¶47} (Fla.1993), 172, an opportuni- the state gets 630 So.2d the court held whether raising syn- of a defendant battered-woman ty independent for an examination testimony type on the depends of her self-defense defense part drome is, on presenting any trial. That evidence present intends to at defendant allow a examination necessarily compelled would not
179 Thus, expert. a a state when testifies expert generally as-to battered- syndrome, e.g., woman including description syndrome and characteris- tics of a person syndrome, with battered-woman including hypothetical, the state not would be entitled its own examination. But if the expert defendant’s regarding testifies whether the defendant syn- suffered from battered-woman it, drome or acted is pursuant to then the state entitled to its own examination: “A defendant who privilege against takes stand waives the com- pelled self-incrimination. If defendant were rely able to on her statements being presented would, trier of fact an through expert’s testimony, she effect, be testify able to without taking subjecting the stand and herself to the questions. Allowing state’s the state’s expert will examine defendant keep being state from unduly prejudiced because a defendant will not be able to rely the state has no effective means of rebutting.” Id. at 176. (1988), In 650, 656, State Briand 130 N.H. 547 A.2d the court
held that because a offering own indirectly when using expert, an she waives right not to incriminate herself. expert’s “Because the testimony is predicated statements, thus on the defendant’s the latter are explicitly or implicitly placed through evidence the testimony of during direct and cross-examination. Since defendant would waive his against privilege compelled self-incrimination if he took the stand and made those himself, same statements his decision to introduce his account relevant facts indirectly through expert witness should likewise be treated as a waiver obligating him to provide the same access to the State’s expert given that he has own, to his and opening the door to the introduction of resulting evidence, State’s requests here, as the State extent comparable introduces evidence on his own behalf. Just as the may State not a compelled psychological use examination to circumvent the privilege against self-incrimination, see Estelle [v. (1981)], 463, 101 [1866, Smith at 359], U.S. [454] S.Ct. 68 L.Ed.2d may neither a defendant voluntarily employ a psychological wholly negate witness waiver that his direct introduction personal testimony would otherwise effect.” Id. 655-656. (Nev.2008), Mitchell v. State P.3d the defendant pleaded murder, guilty claiming that he fired shots self-defense because his disorders,
mental including disorder, posttraumatic stress him caused to overesti- mate the threat of ability attack and inhibited his requisite to form the mens rea *10 guilty to be of murder. by He had been his examined own and experts intended testimony to use their request, at trial. At the judge state’s the trial ordered the by defendant to be an independent psychiatrist. examined Court Supreme The of Nevada trial concluded the court had not ordering abused its discretion for three order appropriate court found the trial court’s The
the examination. court,” court held that the trial court First, to the “similar the Briand reasons: ** * because psychiatric examination authority to order the “had the inherent of truth responsibility promote to the ascertainment court had the the district Second, the court found proceedings.” of the the orderliness and to ensure into directly his state placed mental “because Mitchell Manning persuasive Hickson, own without the state’s Third, the court found that citing issue.” defendant, from “the unfair Mitchell would benefit of the examination psychiatric person- expert testimony upon own favorable based introducing his asymmetry his to cross- interviews, ability the to rebut contentions while State’s limiting al testimony.” generalized expert and examining experts introducing those defense a found that when implicitly Court has Supreme The United States testimony, his garners own his mental status issue puts defendant (1981), 451 U.S. state. In Estelle Smith he is to examination the susceptible competency L.Ed.2d the defendant submitted to 101 S.Ct. The court found capital the trial in his murder case. hearing before trial; guilt not during stand the exam was mentioned competent however, present- the state During penalty phase, proceedings. of the phase evaluation; competency had who conducted the psychiatrist ed from the of three dangerousness, a risk of future one opined posed that the defendant to make in order for death sentence be findings jury required jury appropriate. The the death sentence imposed. found court that the violated defendant’s psychiatrist’s The held defendant, initiates a “A criminal who neither right against self-incrimination: any evidence, may psychiatric nor to introduce psychiatric attempts evaluation if statements can be used respond psychiatrist his compelled be proceeding.” him at a Id. at 468. against capital sentencing opinion dangerousness, court found that his on future by giving The examina- beyond purpose competency had moved the limited psychiatrist tion, psychiatrist] “When changed and it his role vis-a-vis defendant: [the competence court on beyond reporting to the the issue simply went respon- on the crucial issue of penalty phase testified for the at the prosecution essentially his role became like that of dangerousness, changed future dent’s made in recounting postarrest an State unwarned statements agent of the setting.” Id. at 467. custodial the psychiatric court that had the defendant initiated implied But the trial, it at result would have sought
evaluation and introduce evidence insanity introduces different: “When defendant asserts been may his silence State of the supporting psychiatric testimony, deprive interjected issue that he proof it controverting effective means has
181 into the case. Accordingly, that, several Courts of Appeals have held under such circumstances, can required a defendant be sanity submit to a examination by conducted prosecution’s psychiatrist.” at Id. 465. (1987) 402, In Kentucky Buchanan v. 483 422-423, 2906, U.S. 107 S.Ct. 336, Estelle,
97 L.Ed.2d recognized that, court that in it had in “acknowledged situations, other might the State have an interest introducing psychiatric evidence petitioner’s to rebut defense.” The court Buchanan addressed holding Estelle’s that a criminal defendant who does psychiat- not initiate own ric evaluation attempt or any psychiatric introduce evidence cannot be com- respond pelled to a psychiatrist: “This statement logically leads proposition: to another if a defendant
requests such an evaluation or presents evidence, then, psychiatric at very least, the prosecution may rebut this presentation with from the evidence reports of the examination that the defendant requested. The defendant would have no Fifth Amendment privilege against the introduction of psychiatric this testimony by prosecution. Byers, 1, See United States v. U.S.App.D.C. 8-10, 239 740 1104, (1984) F.2d 1111-1113 (plurality opinion); States, v. Pope United 372 F.2d (C.A.8 710, 1967) (en banc), 720 vacated and remanded on grounds, other 392 U.S. (1968).” 651 [88 S.Ct. 20 L.Ed.2d Id. 1317] In v. (1984), United States Byers U.S.App.D.C. 1, 239 740 F.2d judge
then surveyed Antonin Scalia the numerous cases which a defendant bringing an insanity defense supported by expert testimony compelled was participate a court-ordered examination. Courts had asserted numerous reasons why testimony from expert the state’s did not violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against waiver, self-incrimination: “the estoppel, need to ” balance,’ maintain a ‘fair state-individual a matter of fairness,” “fundamental or ” “merely ‘judicial function of common sense.’ reality, stated, Scalia Judge “they have denied the Fifth Amendment claim primarily because of the unreason- able and it debilitating effect would have upon society’s conduct of a fair inquiry * * * into the defendant’s culpability. agree concern, We with this and are content to rely upon it alone the basis rejection for our of the Fifth Amendment claim.” Id. on Based authority, above we conclude that when defendant
demonstrates an intention
expert
to use
psychiatric
examination
establish that battered-woman
caused
her “a bona fide belief that
she was in imminent
danger
death or great bodily harm
of escape
force,”
means
Thomas,
use
State
77 Ohio St.3d at
1339, i.e.,
N.E.2d
to use testimony to prove self-defense,
element
second
a court may compel the defendant to submit to an
examination
another
without violating the defendant’s
under
rights
to the
Fifth Amendment
and the
Constitution
10, Article I of the Ohio
Section
directly at issue
mental state
By
putting
Constitution.
United States
expert,
her own statements
upon
based
introducing expert
concern-
state’s
to a limited examination
opens the door
Courts
its
on the defendant’s behavior.
syndrome effect
*12
ing battered-woman
allowing
and
process,
in the trial
authority
fairness
preserve
the
to
have
inherent
of battered-
on the
effects
testimony
specific
to present
the defendant
ability
the
prosecution
the
denying
while
on the defendant
woman syndrome
the
prevent
the
and
handicap
prosecution
unfairly
would
introduce such evidence
that the trial
thus conclude
informed decision. We
making
an
trier of fact
in this case.
examination of Goff
ordering
in
Resnick’s
court
not err
did
Testimony
Expert
the State’s
C. Limits on
of
right against self-
constitutional
limitation on defendant’s bedrock
The
infringement than is
more
carefully
any
must
tailored
avoid
incrimination
be
of
trial
concern of fairness
a fair trial. The paramount
to ensure
necessary
testimony
to present
the same
given
opportunity
that the state
requires
be
in Estelle
syndrome as the defendant. When
on battered-woman
examination, the
beyond
purpose
compelled
of
as to matters
testified
right.
Fifth Amendment
The court
violation of the defendant’s
court found a
that of an
essentially
agent
like
expert’s
changed
“role
became
found that the
custodial
postarrest
statements
unwarned
made
recounting
of the State
Estelle,
467, 101
1866,
discrepancies regarding are akin to own level of fear more representations regarding of her her truth Id. setting.” made in custodial “recounting postarrest unwarned statements involving in a case testimony appropriate of type 2901.06 describes R.C. testimony testimony syndrome general, about the syndrome: battered-woman syndrome, experienced the defendant regarding whether requisite for the belief of imminent whether the accounts concerning justify question. harm to the use of the force great bodily death or danger of form an on whether Goff opinion Resnick that he was unable to testified much to thus did not have syndrome. battered-woman He symptomatic of testify. which he was called to expert testimony as on the issue about offer had made Instead, in statements Goff length he about inconsistencies testified Armed with over provided the state had him. compared to him to other evidence state, essentially another cross- by he became provided of evidence items the court where he found her reported areas examiner Goff of battered-woman any Before substantive mention wanting. even his testimony, the state elicited from Resnick examples Goffs inconsistencies regarding the time period right around the killing. Resnick also testified that Goff had him told that she was intensely
fearful of her husband “there were four items which caused [him] question degree intensity her fear.” Instead of comparing her level of fear to a with person battered-woman syndrome, discussing or whether response actions in to that fear were consistent with those with someone with syndrome, questioned battered-woman he truly whether she was as fearful as she Again, had told him. veracity was at issue. Resnick’s testimony was not syndrome. focused on battered-woman
Instead, presented overarching theory the case rather than testimony about the part syndrome played in the case. Resnick testified: I “So I did feel could reach an opinion. So what I did was simply try lay clearly out as ways could different to look at the case to allow the ultimate trier fact to make the proper [of] decision.” He testified as to the specific *13 statements that Goff during examination, had made the compelled demonstrated how those statements her, were not consistent with the against state’s evidence and, upon based examination, statements made to him during speculated six through alternative theories to Goffs for shooting motivation her husband. Resnick’s testimony was Goffs credibility meant everything in the case. He set forth story inconsistencies and questioned whether she was him, truthful to interviews, stated that after eight hours of he had no opinion on whether she was truthful or not. This nonopinion actually functioned as an opinion on her credibility. That was not his In role. his closing argument, the prosecutor shifting commented stories that Resnick had detected from his interviews with decision, Goff. announcing his the trial judge indicated that he was influenced by the testimony: “In this I weighed evidence, case have positive both negative
this matter. too feel that the issues should be by determined whether or not defendant, the Court deems the defendant’s testimony as being truthful. goes This along with Dr. Resnick’s position, and I think very openly said that if the Court believed Mrs. testimony, Goffs then the Court in fact should strongly consider the self defense as an appropriate verdict.” We conclude that although the trial court did not err ordering psychiatric Goff, examination the examination and subsequent established that Resnick exceeded the boundaries of what necessary provide playing level field between the state and the defense as to expert testimony. Resnick went beyond determining whether Goff suffered from bat- syndrome; tered-woman “his role changed and became essentially like that of an agent the State recounting unwarned in postarrest statements made custodi- Estelle, As in “[t]he 68 L.Ed.2d 467, 101 S.Ct. setting.” U.S. al therefore, because State directly involved here privilege, Fifth Amendment during disclosures [her] the substance respondent against used as evidence were used examination,” inquiry of that and “the results psychiatric pretrial respondent.” adverse to plainly that was objective a much the State for broader at 464-465. Id. right against violated Goffs find that Resnick’s therefore We I of the Constitution Article Ohio guaranteed Section
self-incrimination we Accordingly, Constitution. States Amendment United the Fifth trial matter to the remand the appeals court of judgment reverse court. reversed
Judgment and cause remanded. Cupp, JJ., Brown, C.J., and Lundberg O’Connor, Stratton, Lanzinger, concur. J., judgment. concurs
O’Donnell, judgment.
O’Donnell, J., concurring in prosecutors the door to allow case, majority opens In this who battered allege defendants mental examinations conduct opportunity self-defense without the with the defense of syndrome in connection woman’s that when a defendant asserts agree I do not statutory authority to do so. case, criminal as an element of self-defense battered woman’s a state-requested psychiatric that defendant to submit court should order *14 here, the state examination, presented as where in circumstances particularly suffered battered only not whether the defendant probed psychiatrist the mental examination during testified to facts obtained syndrome, but woman’s Thus, majority the agree state’s case. while with the supported that aided the trial court were violated when rights Fifth Amendment Megan Goffs state, I an of the essentially agent to like expert testify the state’s permitted view, ordering trial court erred in my in the join majority, because cannot examination. psychiatric submit to the state to Goff of respect with to use Assembly provided guidance has The General syndrome woman’s is which the of battered in cases in issue expert witnesses expert to “introduce a defendant permits R.C. 2901.06 by raised a defendant. testimony expert syndrome’ ‘battered woman testimony of the requisite to belief as evidence establish syndrome from that suffered person necessary, is as an harm that bodily of or danger great an imminent death of self-defense], of element the affirmative justify person’s to use of [of in question.” the force Similarly, permits R.C. 2945.392 expert defendant introduce testi- of
mony syndrome battered woman’s if plea she enters a of charge not by reason of guilty insanity order “to establish the of requisite impairment reason, defendant’s at the time of the commission the offense.” Thus, the General has Assembly authorized defendant to offer expert syndrome connection with battered woman’s both in a self-defense context and when a plea enters of not guilty insanity. reason Moreover, recognized as by the this majority, court has sanctioned the use of syndrome battered woman’s prove element of the defense of self-defense. (1990), State v. Koss 49 Ohio St.3d 551 N.E.2d paragraph three Koss, In syllabus. this court determined: “Admission of regarding the syndrome battered woman does establish a new defense or justification. It is to assist the trier of fact determine whether the defendant acted out of an honest belief that she is in imminent of death or danger great bodily harm and that the of such use force was her only means of escape.” Id. Furthermore, 2945.371(A), R.C. Assembly General has authorized the court to order an evaluation in the context of or competency an insanity However, defense. notably absent from the statute any is authorization for the prosecutor ask the court to order a mental examination of a defendant in the context of a claim battered syndrome woman’s in connection with the defense of self-defense. Accordingly, the General Assembly could provided have for court
ordered state-requested mental examinations in all cases where evidence of syndrome battered presented defendant, woman’s aby it but chose not do so. Instead, 2901.06, in R.C. it provided defendant may introduce testimony of battered woman’s evidence establish the requisite belief of an imminent danger great of death or bodily harm as a necessary element of self-defense, the affirmative defense of it to specify declined the prosecutor may or request that a may court order mental examination of the defendant Thus, such circumstances. expressly authorized examination of a defendant arises situations involving competency or defense of not guilty reason of insanity. my view, the omission opportunity prosecutor for a to seek an examination of a defendant asserting battered woman’s as part of the affirmative defense of self-defense in *15 R.C. legislative 2945.371 indicates intent to limit mental examinations involving battered woman’s involving circumstances or an competency insanity defense. examina- obtaining mental Thus, precluded should be state such an exam not authorized Assembly has the General
tion in this case because relating or issues insanity Goff did not raise conducted. As to be to submit trial, ordered her improperly the trial court to stand competency woman’s she asserted battered merely because mental examination in the Accordingly, concur of self-defense. with her defense connection reverse, different reasons. but for judgment Robert C. Jr., Prosecuting Attorney, and County Lawrence
J.B. Collier Anderson, Prosecuting Attorney, appellee. Assistant Brown, Bluth, Richard Dortch, L.L.C.,
Kravitz, Paula William Brown & Parsons, for appellant. Haines, Defender, Assistant Kristopher A. Public
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender. Defender, for amicus curiae Ohio reversal urging Public Association Stevenson, for amicus curiae Ohio reversal urging Andrew Lawyers. Defense Criminal Fuhrmann, League Justice Ohio. reversal for amicus curiae urging
Mellissia Family University Capital for amicus curiae urging reversal McCaughan, Lorie Advocacy Clinic. Mizer, General, General, Benjamin Solicitor Attorney C. Cordray,
Richard Solicitor, curiae Kanai, affirmance for amicus Ohio urging Assistant Matthew A. Attorney General. Company al., Appellants, et
Allstate
Insurance
Campbell
Appellees.
al.,
et
Campbell, Ins. Co. v.
[Cite as Allstate
186,