Justices' ruling expands use of battered-woman syndrome
The evidence can be used when a victim's credibility is questioned.
COLUMBUS (AP) -- Prosecutors are allowed to present evidence of battered-woman syndrome when the credibility of a domestic violence victim is challenged, the Ohio Supreme Court said Thursday.
The 6-1 decision expanded the use of battered-woman syndrome from its usual application as a defense by women accused of killing men they said had been abusive.
Justice Paul Pfeifer, writing for the majority, said evidence establishing the cycles of battering in a relationship is an appropriate basis for discussing battered-woman syndrome in general.
But he cautioned that judges also must balance the use of such testimony since in some cases it can wrongly imply a defendant's guilt.
At issue are trials involving allegations of domestic violence during which a defense attorney tries to challenge the credibility of a victim, questioning why a woman didn't leave an abuser, for example. It would not affect cases where a woman was using battered-woman syndrome as a defense.
Sets parameters
Justice Pfeifer said expert witnesses can talk only about the syndrome itself and not speak to whether a particular victim suffers from the syndrome.
"An expert witness who diagnoses a victim as a battered woman essentially concludes that the defendant is a batterer," he said.
In the case decided Thursday, an expert on battered-woman syndrome testified that the victim likely suffered from the syndrome.
The ruling had a mixed impact on the defendant who challenged his 2003 conviction on charges of kidnapping his girlfriend and beating her multiple times with a belt.
The decision upheld Bryan Haines' conviction on charges surrounding assaults on Jacqueline Bohley in April 2002 in Painesville in Lake County.
But the same ruling said the expert's testimony about battered-woman syndrome tainted related convictions from Haines' alleged assault on Bohley the month before.
Charge thrown out
Justice Pfeifer explained that evidence of the earlier assault was based almost completely on Bohley's statements about the attack, which she did not report at the time.
As a result, testimony that Bohley likely suffered from battered-woman syndrome could well have swayed jurors to convict Haines of that assault by explaining why the victim didn't report it or leave Haines after it happened, Thursday's ruling said.
Because of that conclusion, the Supreme Court threw out those charges, and Haines' 15-year prison sentence was reduced by seven years, according to his attorney, Ian Friedman.
In the April assaults, jurors could view other evidence, including photographs of injuries, testimony of co-workers whom Bohley called for help and statements from police.
That meant the expert's testimony about Bohley and battered-woman syndrome wasn't a deciding factor, Justice Pfeifer said.
Implications
The ruling could have widespread impact on domestic violence cases since part of a defense attorney's job is to challenge the victim's credibility, Friedman said.
"There's now danger in any criminal trial when a victim of domestic violence can have his or her testimony cleaned up by an expert alleging battered-woman syndrome," he said.
A message was left with the Lake County prosecutor's office seeking comment.
In a dissent, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger said allowing such testimony could sway jurors about a defendant's guilt.
The result "is to transform a shield for the defense into a sword for the prosecution," she said.