Convicted Killer’s ‘Homosexual Panic’ Defense Rejected

A state Court of Appeal on Friday rejected an attempt to use a novel defense of “homosexual panic” by a convicted murderer who said he killed a man in an irrational reaction to an unexpected sexual advance.

The three-member panel unanimously upheld the conviction of Frankie Don Huie Jr. and found that the trial judge correctly prevented defense psychiatrists from testifying about the defendant’s small-town background and how he reacted to the overtures of the victim, a T-shirt store manager he befriended in San Francisco.

Such testimony was not properly offered as expert opinion on a recognized mental disease or defect, the panel said, and thus should not have been presented to the jury.

The decision in the widely watched case was based on narrow legal grounds and did not foreclose attempts to use the unusual “panic” defense in other cases. Nonetheless, it represented a victory for gay rights leaders who are opposing the defense in crimes involving violence against homosexuals.

“We are certainly happy the murder conviction has been upheld,” said Joyce Norcini, a San Francisco attorney representing National Gay Rights Advocates. Norcini expressed disappointment, however, that the court had not issued a broader ruling. “This defense should be relegated to the trash can,” she said. “It’s predicated on antiquated beliefs about homosexuality.”

Susan Kwan, a deputy state public defender representing Huie in the case, said an appeal to the state Supreme Court will be considered. Huie’s legal claim, Kwan said, is a valid one. “Because of the advances that were made, he believed he was in danger,” she said.

Huie, now 21, was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison for the October, 1987, killing of Steve Mayeda, 41, who had hired Huie as a day laborer.

At trial, the defense argued that Huie should be convicted of no more than voluntary manslaughter because the attack had been triggered by a sexual proposition from Mayeda and Huie honestly, if unreasonably, believed he had to defend himself.

The defense presented relatives and acquaintances who testified about the youth’s upbringing in a small town in Texas with adverse views toward homosexuality. Defense lawyers also attempted to call two psychiatrists and a psychologist to the witness stand but were barred from doing so by the judge.

On appeal, Huie argued that the prohibition on such testimony prevented him from presenting a complete defense. But the appellate panel noted that the defense had not sought to present the testimony as formal expert opinion on mental disease or defect but only as an account of what they had been told of Huie’s sheltered background and how he might have reacted to a homosexual advance.

“Although experts may rely on appropriate hearsay (evidence), nonexpert witnesses ordinarily may not, and the proposed witnesses had no direct knowledge of the offense or (Huie’s) background,” wrote Appellate Justice Zerne P. Haning in an opinion joined by Appellate Justices Harry W. Low and Donald B. King. “Consequently, their proffered testimony appeared to be outside their perception, cumulative, and improper hearsay.”