Weiand v. State and battered spouse syndrome.

• Author: Orr, Douglas A.

The Toothless Tigress Can Now Roar

In March 1999, Florida's Supreme Court effectively granted Florida women the ability to rely upon battered spouse syndrome as a defense to killing their abuser. Prior to the court's decision in Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1999), an abused woman's ability to justifiably defend herself from a physically abusive husband or live-in boyfriend was no greater than that of anyone to defend themselves in a bar fight.[1] Although Weiand has wide-reaching implications for any person attacked in his or her home, the unfortunate reality is that women who are attacked by paramours are most likely to be the ultimate beneficiaries of the Weiand holding. Previously, Florida followed the minority rule among states, which imposes a duty to retreat before defending oneself with deadly force. Courts did recognize the limited "castle doctrine" exception, which provides that there is no duty to retreat when attacked in one's own home. However, prior to Weiand, a gray area existed: What if both assailant and victim lived in that house? Was there a duty to retreat, or could a battered woman rely upon the castle doctrine, stand her ground, and defend herself with deadly force? The law was unsettled. The Weiand decision answers this question.

Kathleen Weiand shot and killed her husband Todd. At trial, Kathleen's defense was battered spouse syndrome; she lived in such fear of Todd that she had no choice but to kill him, fearing that if she did not, he would kill her. Defense expert Dr. Lenore Walker,[2] a clinical and forensic psychologist, testified that Kathleen showed all the signs of battered spouse syndrome and that she believed Todd was going to kill her. However, the court's jury instruction included the admonition that "[t]he fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify her use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating she could have avoided the need to use that force."[3] One year after Kathleen pulled the trigger, an eight-woman, four-man jury rejected the battered spouse syndrome defense and convicted Kathleen Weiand of second degree murder for killing Todd. Approximately one month later, Kathleen Weiand was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Florida's Second District Court of Appeal would affirm her conviction.[4] However, because the Florida Supreme Court considered the issue to be of great public importance, Weiand v. State was reargued.

Abused women who live in fear for their lives and who ultimately kill their abuser may suffer from battered spouse syndrome. Battered spouse syndrome is created by a cycle of physical abuse within a relationship. Typically, there are three phases in a cycle.[5] Phase one involves minor battering incidents, verbal abuse, and attempts by the woman to placate the man. Phase two involves an "acute battering incident" where the woman is severely beaten. Phase three is one of contrition and loving behavior on the part of the male, which reinforces the woman's hope for her mate's reform. Some time later, phase one begins again. The cumulative effect of this cycle of abuse is that the woman becomes perpetually fearful of the man and feels helpless to improve her situation. Killing her abuser becomes her only escape from the relationship.

One of the earliest cases in this country to allow the defense of battered spouse syndrome was State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178 (N.J. 1984). In Kelly, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the existence of battered spouse syndrome was relevant to the honesty and reasonableness of a woman's claim that she believed she was in imminent danger of death or serious injury. In the first Florida case to mention battered spouse syndrome, the First District Court of Appeal in Hawthorne v. State, 408 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), ruled to allow testimony by Dr. Lenore Walker to explain the reasonableness of the defendant's belief that she was in imminent danger, if the trial court decided that, "Dr. Walker is qualified and that the subject is sufficiently developed and can support an expert opinion."[6] In most cases where evidence of battered spouse syndrome is admitted, it is solely for this limited purpose. Battered spouse syndrome is only a small part of the traditionally narrow self-defense doctrine.[7] It is not, itself, a complete defense.

To justify homicide under any claim of self defense, a defendant must establish the presence of three elements: 1) the defendant believed she must use force against an imminent threat of harm; 2) the amount of force used was proportionate to the threatened harm; and 3) the defendant retreated to the greatest degree reasonably possible.[8] Evidence that a woman suffers from battered spouse syndrome addresses part one of this standard, namely, whether the woman honestly feared for her life.

Part three of this tripartite self defense standard, the duty to retreat, is inapplicable in a defendant's own home because of the so-called "castle doctrine," or privilege of nonretreat. The castle doctrine provides that if an assailant threatens a victim with violence in the victim's own home, the victim may turn aggressor without any duty of retreat, and still be able to justify his actions by claiming self defense.

This theory is premised on the notion that "a man's home is his castle," hence the...