Published on:

The Court of Appeals

The complainant and the defendant dated periodically for a period of time encompassing the past 13 years. The instant charge stems when the defendant is alleged to have picked up the complainant, thrown her over a couch, pushed her to the ground, and stomped on her groin, thereby causing her to allegedly suffer bruised ribs and a fractured coccyx.

In support of their application, the People detail the complainant’s allegations of physical and psychological abuse by the criminal defendant over a prolonged period of time. Included are a litany of alleged violent acts directed at her by the defendant, from 1991 to 2003. The alleged violence included threatening to kill the complainant on numerous occasions, repeatedly beating her, urinating on her, various acts of forcible sex, and constant berating of her. Although these acts occurred over a period of 13 years, except for brief sporadic periods of separateness, the complainant did not leave the defendant nor immediately seek protection from the police. All of the prior alleged violent acts were also the subject of the People’s Molineux application, which was separately decided.

The charges contained in the criminal complaint before the court allegedly occurred on August 25, 2003. The complainant did not report the alleged crime to the police on August 25, 2003. On October 19, 2003, after other alleged incidents, the complainant reported the charge to the police along with four additional charges. Thereafter, on November 6, 2003, the defendant was arrested for the above-listed crimes.

The People are prepared to proceed to trial, and in so doing, argue that expert testimony would aid the jury in the understanding of the complainant’s delay in reporting the August 25th incident. Further, the People specifically emphasized that their expert would be called to give an opinion in support of their contention that the complainant suffers from battered woman syndrome (BWS). The People claim that the expert’s testimony will explain why the defendant abused the complainant in front of another prior victim of his abuse, and that the expert’s testimony is necessary to explain why the complainant waited nearly three months to report the incident.

The People contend that the expert testimony is relevant to explain the psychological effects of the defendant’s abuse toward the complainant and her perplexing behavior patterns, in essence, her continuous contact with the defendant.

The defendant opposes the calling of the expert, arguing, in essence, that the expert’s testimony is not appropriate since the complainant was not a battered woman, but, instead, a scorned woman, who had engaged in false accusations because of her baseless belief of the defendant’s infidelity and/or unexplained whereabouts. In addition, the defendant seeks to preclude the BWS expert as inapplicable since the parties were neither married nor living together and the defendant claims that the complainant was the aggressor. The defendant’s second argument that BWS testimony is inapplicable in the case at bar because the parties were neither married nor living together is completely without merit. The court is not aware of any study or requirement indicating that BWS only relates to parties that are married or live together.

The principal question presented in this domestic violence case is whether the District County Court should permit the People to introduce expert testimony on their direct case on the subject of the battered woman syndrome in order to explain the conduct of the complainant in response to the alleged assault, specifically her delay in reporting the alleged incident for approximately nine weeks. The Court of Appeals has long held that the admissibility and bounds of expert testimony are addressed primarily to the sound discretion of the trial court. The battered woman syndrome has been described as a series of common characteristics found in women who are abused both physically and emotionally by the dominant male figures in their lives over a prolonged period of time.

A thorough review of New York case law regarding BWS found that there have been only few written decisions where a court has ruled on whether expert testimony regarding BWS is admissible. Typically, BWS is advanced by defendants to assist the jury in evaluating the reasonableness of force used in self-defense wherein the proponent of the testimony, the defendant, is charged with a crime. Only a few New York criminal courts have discussed the use by the prosecution on their direct case of an expert regarding BWS.

The court finds that the use by the People of a BWS expert to explain a complainant’s complete recantation of the charges is dramatically different than the use to explain a delay in reporting the alleged crimes.

Various other courts have allowed the People to introduce expert testimony about BWS to explain a recantation, a prior inconsistent statement, or unusual behavior.

Although, the admission of expert testimony regarding battered woman syndrome, rape trauma syndrome, and learned helplessness syndrome has been held to be proper to explain behavior on the part of the complainant that might seem unusual to a lay jury unfamiliar with the patterns of response exhibited by a person who has been physically and sexually abused over a period of time, the court finds none of the facts apparent in this particular case outside of a jury’s common sense and logic, and therefore, sees no reason for permitting the People to present testimony on BWS on their direct case.

The People contend that permitting them to introduce expert testimony on BWS in their case-in-chief would be helpful to the jury’s understanding of the victim’s perceptions and behavior. The People fail to evaluate the prejudicial impact of the testimony on the defendant. The court holds that expert testimony on battered woman syndrome is inadmissible as a matter of law where it is used as an affirmative weapon against a defendant. Furthermore, the conflict with the admission of this testimony is that it violates the protections provided to the criminal defendant and contradicts the court’s Molineux ruling. In particular, the facts of the case focus on allegations of assault which were not reported immediately by the complainant. A jury is well within their bounds and exercise of common sense to evaluate the complainant’s testimony regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged incident as well as her minimal delay in reporting.

Although the court acknowledges that there does exist varying misconceptions regarding battering relationships, the court does not believe any such potential lack of understanding in the particular case is sufficient grounds for admitting expert testimony which otherwise has only limited probative value but substantial prejudicial impact on the defendant. Simply put, if a BWS expert is permitted to give testimony in this particular case and begins by detailing the symptoms experienced by a battered woman or person, this leads to the inference that the complainant is a battered woman, and the defendant committed prior acts of violence against the complainant. Expert testimony regarding the symptoms of a battered person leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the complainant suffers from BWS, which presupposes and speculates on the existence of a batterer. Since there is no evidence that any other person other than the criminal defendant was involved in a relationship with the complainant during the relevant time period, such testimony amounts to an opinion that the defendant was and is in fact a batterer.

After reviewing both the People’s memorandum of law and the criminal defendant’s memorandum in opposition, and considering counsel’s arguments on both sides of the issue, the court will not permit the People’s proposed expert to testify on their direct case regarding battered woman syndrome. In sum, expert testimony on battered woman syndrome should be admissible only to address an issue that is inherently confusing to the jury and when there is no other evidence to address it. The court finds that the admission of any such testimony is not necessary to aid the trier of fact in this case in assessing the circumstances surrounding the relatively minimal delay in the complainant’s reporting of the instant alleged offense, and finds the probative value outweighed by the prejudicial impact. As such, the People are precluded from introducing such evidence on their direct case.

Any form of abuse should not be a part of any relationship. When a woman allows her partner to abuse her or harm her, she is exposing herself to a more serious situation. To be able to fully and successfully defend yourself in your sexual related dispute, call the Nassau County Criminal Attorney or the Nassau County Rape Lawyer of Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:

Comments are closed.

Contact Information