State v. Riker, Battered Women Under Duress: the Concept the Washington Supreme Court Could Not Grasp
Jurisdiction | Washington,United States |
Citation | Vol. 19 No. 02 |
Publication year | 1995 |
Introduction
Domestic violence does not discriminate. It strikes with equal force to all victims. There is no typical battered woman. She is a neighbor, a friend, a co-worker, a boss, a sister, a child, a mother. With statistics evidencing that a woman is beaten every eighteen seconds,(fn1) it is difficult for one to ignore this issue.
Fortunately, society is becoming increasingly aware of the domestic violence problem in America. Since 1979, courts have held that expert testimony regarding the existence of the battered woman syndrome (BWS) is admissible.(fn2) Through these judicial decisions and legislative action,(fn3) many battered women are now allowed to present evidence of the BWS to support a defense to criminal acts related to their batterers. Unfortunately, not all battered women defendants are allowed to introduce BWS testimony to support their defenses. Deborah Riker is one of the battered women to whom the Supreme Court of Washington chose to deny this opportunity.(fn4)
Although some people have the option of going to the police after receiving threats on their lives, this was not the case for Deborah Riker: Deborah is a battered woman.(fn5) Since age nine, Deborah suffered repeated torture and abuse at the hands of men who were in her life.(fn6) In 1987, Deborah met Rupert Burke, a man who abused both women and drugs.(fn7) When Burke threatened both Deborah and her sister, Deborah did what he told her to do: she sold him cocaine.(fn8)
As a result, Deborah was charged with delivery and possession of cocaine.(fn9) Deborah's case presented the classic defense of duress, but she was not allowed to introduce evidence to adequately support this defense.(fn10) Although Washington courts admit BWS testimony in cases where a battered woman's state of mind is at issue, in
This Note argues that prior Washington case law, current literature on the BWS, and proper application of evidence rules with regard to expert testimony mandate that courts admit BWS testimony where the defendant claims a defense of duress, regardless of the factual context in which the duress occurred. Because of the
I. Scientific Evidence and Expert Testimony in Washington
Because trial judges lack scientific expertise, courts are reluctant to admit scientific evidence unless the theory or procedure used has been carefully scrutinized, thereby ensuring its validity.(fn15) Further, because the average person lacks the training and experience necessary to interpret scientific evidence, experts are needed to explain the foundation for such evidence to the jury.(fn16)
Washington courts engage in a two-step inquiry to determine the admissibility of expert testimony regarding
The standard applied by Washington courts for determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence was originally set out in
Under the
After a court determines that novel scientific evidence satisfies the
Relevant testimony is governed by Evidence Rule 401 (ER 401)(fn34) and Evidence Rule 403 (ER 403).(fn35) ER 401 provides a liberal definition of relevance, requiring only the following: (1) the testimony must have the "tendency to prove or disprove a fact," and (2) the testimony "must be of some consequence in the context of the other facts and the applicable substantive law."(fn36) Traditionally, these requirements are referred to as probative value(fn37) and materiality.(fn38)
ER 403 is a limitation on ER 401.(fn39) Under ER 403, even relevant evidence may be excluded if it is unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or a waste of time.(fn40) Applying a balancing process, courts will exclude evidence if its negative character outweighs its general relevance.(fn41) However, a judge may not exclude evidence merely because she disbelieves it.(fn42) This question is a matter of credibility and is strictly for the jury to decide.(fn43)
Relevance under both ER 401 and ER 403, then, is intricately related to the jury's role in the case. Washington courts have held that testimony is relevant if it assists the jury to understand a phenomenon that is outside the competence of the average lay person.(fn44) The BWS is an example of just such a phenomenon.
II. The Battered Woman Syndrome
The BWS is a psychological term of art that explains "the measurable psychological changes that occur after exposure to repeated abuse."(fn45) The BWS is not an illness, "it is a collection of thoughts, feelings, and actions that logically follow a frightening experience that one expects could be repeated."(fn46) Dr. Lenore E. Walker is largely responsible for the development of the BWS and is a nationally recognized expert in this area.(fn47) Dr. Walker defines a battered woman as "one who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without any concern for her rights."(fn48) There is no typical battered woman because the syndrome affects women from all socio-economic groups and religions.(fn49)
Dr. Walker conducted one of the first scientific research projects studying the psychological effects of repeated abuse on battered women.(fn50) The results of Dr. Walker's study are based on tests conducted on 435 battered women.(fn51) According to Dr. Walker, a woman is diagnosed as a battered woman when she has experienced at least two cycles of violence with the same intimate partner.(fn52) In reaching this diagnosis, it is clinically...
To continue reading
Request your trial