FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256
Go to Volume 11 Table of Contents  -  Go to Chapter 256 Table of Contents

256.1 Battered Person’s Syndrome

    256.1.2 Battered Person Syndrome: Challenge To Required Objective Mental State Under Reasonable Person Standard

    256.1.2.1 Battered Person Syndrome As Relevant To The Reasonableness Of A Person's Perception, Knowledge And Belief
    256.1.2.2 Battered Person Syndrome As Reasonable Grounds For Honest Belief
    256.1.2.3 Battered Person Syndrome: Improper To Instruct Jury To Consider A Reasonable Person In The Defendant's Situation

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256

PRACTICE NOTE: The objective reasonable person standard is governed by consideration of the circumstances as perceived by a reasonable person in the defendant's situation. (See FORECITE National™ 48.1 [Objective Unreasonableness (Reasonable Person Standard): General Principles].) Hence, battered person syndrome evidence is relevant to the objective reasonable person standard because being battered can alter the perception of a reasonable person. "...[T]he battered woman develops a heightened sensitivity to any kinds of cues of distress. Thus, because of her intimate knowledge of her batterer, the battered woman perceives danger faster and more accurately as she is more acutely aware that a new or escalated violent episode is about to occur. What is or is not an overt demonstration of violence varies with the circumstances. Under some circumstances a slight movement may justify instant action because of reasonable apprehension of danger, under other circumstances this would not be so. And it is for the jury, and not for the judge passing upon the weight and effect of the evidence, to determine how this may be. Indeed, considering her particular circumstances, the battered woman's perception of the situation and her belief as to the imminence of great bodily harm or death may be deemed reasonable." [Internal cites and quote marks omitted.] (Bechtel v. State (OK 1992) 840 P2d 1, 10; see also People v. Humphrey (CA 1996) 13 C4th 1073, 1083 [56 CR2d 142]; Robinson v. State (SC 1992) 417 SE2d 88, 91.)

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256

    256.1.2.2    Battered Person Syndrome As Reasonable Grounds For Honest Belief

PRACTICE NOTE: Even though self defense and heat of passion impose an objective standard of reasonableness, that standard must be evaluated in light of the experiences of the individual defendant. (See e.g., FORECITE National™ 253.4.9 [Self-Defense: Prior Acts Or Threats].)  Hence, battered person syndrome evidence should be considered by the jury to determine whether the defendant had reasonable grounds for an honest belief that she was in imminent danger when considering the issue of self defense. (See e.g., People v. Humphrey (CA 1996) 13 C4th 1073, 1083-89 [56 CR2d 142]; State v. Hennum (MN 1989) 441 NW2d 793, 798-99; State v. Kelly (NJ 1984) 478 A2d 364, 375-78; State v. Leidholm (ND 1983) 334 NW2d 811, 816-18; State v. Koss (OH 1990) 551 NE2d 970, 973-74; Commonwealth v. Stonehouse (PA 1989) 555 A2d 772, 781 [trial counsel ineffective in failing to request jury instruction in homicide trial which would require jury to consider cumulative effects of psychological and physical abuse when assessing reasonableness of battered person's fear of imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury with respect to claim of self defense].)

    For example, Springer v. Commonwealth (KY 1999) 998 SW2d 439, 454 held that a defendant who was the victim of domestic violence and abuse and killed or assaulted his or her abuser under a belief that there was "impending danger" of being subjected to unlawful physical force at the hands of the abuser, that defendant is entitled to an instruction on self protection, even if the victim was asleep. On the other hand, the defense is not available to a codefendant who was not suffering from Battered Spouse Syndrome and whose culpability was predicated on the facts as the actually existed (e.g., that the victim was asleep) rather than a syndrome-induced belief. (Ibid.)

    256.1.2.3    Battered Person Syndrome: Improper To Instruct Jury To Consider A Reasonable Person In The Defendant's Situation

PRACTICE NOTE:  If a defendant presents evidence that he or she suffers from battered person syndrome, the standard pattern self-defense instruction may be incorrect unless it informs the jury that persons who have the syndrome perceive things differently than others do. The essential characteristic of a battered person is a distorted mental state. Therefore, it is an oxymoron, to utilize the typical reasonable person language included in many standard pattern instructions.  (State v. Edwards (MO 2001) 60 SW2d 602.)