Case Summaries: Criminal Defense of Battered Women
Trial Court Erroneously Included Parties’ Children In DV CPO:
The court of appeals affirmed the issuance of a DV CPO against petitioner’s boyfriend based on evidence that the live-in boyfriend placed the girlfriend in fear of imminent, serious physical harm. However, the girlfriend’s children could not be included in the DV CPO because no direct evidence was presented that the children were threatened with imminent, serious physical harm. Moreover, it was “plain error” for the trial court to have included the children in the order when no evidence was ever presented as to the children. Smith v. Burrougs, 2010-Ohio-4806 (3rd Dist., Wyandot, 10/4/2010).
Keywords: civil protection order, domestic violence
Date: 3/28/11
Battered Woman’s Murder Conviction Reversed Because Of State Expert’s Improper Testimony:
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case to the trial court for retrial. When a defendant demonstrates an intention to use expert testimony from psychiatric examination to establish that the battered woman syndrome caused in her, as an element of self-defense, a bona fide belief that she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that her only means of escape was the use of force, a court may compel the defendant to submit to an examination by the State’s expert without violating her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. However, in this case, the defendant’s right against self-incrimination was violated when the State psychiatric expert did not limit his examination of defendant and his subsequent testimony to whether defendant’s actions were affected by the battered woman syndrome, but also testified at length to inconsistencies in statements defendant had made to him compared to other evidence the State had provided him. An examination of a defendant (battered woman) and subsequent testimony by the State’s expert “must be limited to information related to the battered-woman syndrome and whether the defendant’s actions were affected by the syndrome.” State v. Goff, 2010-Ohio-6317 (2010).
Date: 3/28/11
