Court Ruling Aids Women Who Kill Batterers

In a victory for domestic violence victims who fight back, the California Supreme Court made it easier Thursday for battered women who kill to prove they acted in self-defense and to win acquittals at trial.

The court held, in a unanimous decision that reversed the conviction of a Fresno woman who shot her live-in companion, that judges must allow juries to consider expert testimony about “battered women’s syndrome” in deciding whether to acquit a woman who killed a spouse or partner.

Previously, juries could use such evidence only to determine whether the woman honestly feared for her life, a finding that could justify a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder but was not a basis for acquittal.

Under Thursday’s ruling, juries in California can consider expert testimony in deciding whether a “reasonable person” in the defendant’s position would have felt such danger, the legal hurdle that must be met for acquittal.

“Battered women’s syndrome” is a behavioral condition that experts say afflicts women who are systematically abused. The pattern of violence destroys their self-esteem, leaves them feeling powerless and may eventually lead women to respond violently. Victims may move from one batterer to another in their lives, with the violence often escalating.

The women may try to help themselves by contacting police or running away, but they often stay in abusive situations because they feel responsible for the problem or because of lack of money, social isolation, fear of reprisals and lack of self-confidence. Although Thursday’s decision affects relatively few defendants, the cases often pose difficult issues for juries and draw public attention.

“This is a very important decision in California and it is a great victory for battered women,” said Minouche Kandel, who represented supporters of battered women before the court. “For the first time there is a clear message that expert testimony on domestic violence is relevant to the reasonableness of the battered person’s belief that they were in danger.”

The justices overturned the voluntary manslaughter conviction of Evelyn Humphrey, who in 1992 shot and killed her companion, Albert Hampton, at their Fresno home. Humphrey was released from prison earlier this week after serving nearly four years and is living with her mother in Fresno, her attorney said. The ruling will wipe her conviction from the books.

The high court said that the trial judge erred in refusing to allow the jury to consider expert testimony to evaluate whether Humphrey met the legal requirements for an acquittal.

“Because evidence of battered women’s syndrome may help the jury understand the circumstances in which the defendant found herself at the time of the killing,” wrote Justice Ming W. Chin, author of the majority opinion, “it is relevant to the reasonableness of her belief” about the danger she faced.

Prosecutors complained that the court’s decision was too sweeping and may be used to expand defenses for less sympathetic defendants, including gang members.

“It just opens the door to testimony by experts against other experts about what the psychological state of the defendant was at the time they committed the murder,” said Deputy Atty. Gen. Janet E. Neeley.

Signing the opinion with Chin were Justices Ronald George, Stanley Mosk, Joyce Kennard and Kathryn Mickle Werdegar.

Justices Marvin Baxter, Werdegar and Janice Rogers Brown agreed, in separate concurrences, that Humphrey’s conviction should be voided. But they expressed concerns that the court’s decision was too broad. Baxter, for instance, said a lot of testimony about battered women’s syndrome might be irrelevant to a self-defense claim, and jurors should be so instructed.

Humphrey said she killed her live-in companion because she thought he would kill her. She said Hampton had been drinking the day before the shooting, hit her repeatedly and at one point shot at her. The bullet went through a bedroom window and struck a tree outside.

On the day of the killing, Humphrey told police, Hampton got drunk, swore at her and started hitting her again. She said she pointed the gun at him and told him, “You’re not going to hit me anymore.” Fearing that Hampton was going to strike her or try to grab the gun, she shot him, she said.

Tests showed that Hampton had no drugs or alcohol in his blood when he was killed and found that Humphrey was very drunk.

Evidence also showed that Humphrey had a history of being abused by older men, including her father, and witnesses confirmed that Hampton had repeatedly battered her.

Dr. Lee Bowker, who testified as an expert in “battered women’s syndrome,” told the jury that a batterer’s violence often escalates over time, and the victim senses this. The victim tends to watch the batterer for signs of accelerating abuse, noticing slight changes in behavior or expressions that might indicate violence is coming. Humphrey, the expert said, suffered from “battered women’s syndrome” in “about as extreme pattern as you can find.” Justice Chin, writing for the court, said this testimony was important in determining whether a reasonable person in Humphrey’s situation would have feared imminent danger to her life.

“As violence increases over time, and threats gain credibility, a battered person might become sensitized and thus able reasonably to discern when danger is real and when it is not,” Chin wrote.

Jim Fahey, Humphrey’s lawyer, said the ruling will affect only battered women who kill in confrontation, not when their husbands or partners are sleeping. “It does not change the standard of self-defense in California, which is the person has to actually and reasonably fear grave imminent harm of lethal force,” he said.

He noted that Humphrey probably would have been out of prison a year ago had she decided not to appeal the case to the state Supreme Court. A lower appellate court had ordered a new hearing on a gun conviction that lengthened her three-year manslaughter sentence, but the trial court would not hold that hearing while the Supreme Court case was pending.

Attorneys in the case were uncertain about whether the ruling would be applied retroactively. Deputy Atty. Gen. Neeley said Supreme Court rulings generally do not affect cases already decided unless the court specifically says the decision is retroactive, which it did not in this case.

Gov. Pete Wilson has received about 50 applications for commutations from persons convicted of killing in domestic violence situations. He has acted on about 19 of the cases, reducing the sentence of two inmates.

He gave full executive clemency to Frances Mary Caccavale, who served six years after stabbing her husband of 49 years, citing her advanced age. In a second action, he reduced the 15-years-to-life sentence of Brenda Aris, convicted of killing her husband in his sleep, to 12 years to life. Wilson said he felt compassion for the “pain and terror” she endured from her husband over the years.

In 1995, California logged 60,279 arrests for spousal abuse, according the state attorney general, and 179 murders were blamed on domestic violence. Women were generally the victims.

A previous federal study found that of 540 spousal murder cases in the nation’s largest counties, women were the defendants in 41%.