Bonner v. State
740 So.2d 439 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Expert testimony on battered woman syndrome is admissible and relevant when a defendant claims self-defense, as it helps the jury assess the reasonableness of the defendant's belief of imminent danger by dispelling common misconceptions about victims of abuse.
Facts:
- Barbara Bonner was in a marital relationship with Curtis Bonner, who subjected her and her children to repeated physical and mental abuse.
- The abuse escalated over time and included beatings with his fists, being pushed into walls, being beaten with a gun barrel, and having a gun fired at her.
- Police Officer Robert Jackson testified that he had responded to several 911 emergency calls made by Barbara Bonner as a result of physical beatings by Curtis Bonner.
- On at least two prior occasions, Barbara Bonner had fought back and stabbed Curtis Bonner.
- Barbara Bonner had sought assistance from the Department of Human Resources to obtain a divorce, but Curtis Bonner would apologize and persuade her to stay in the relationship.
- On the night of the incident, Curtis Bonner, who had been drinking, was physically attacking Barbara Bonner.
- During this assault, Barbara Bonner grabbed a knife and stabbed Curtis Bonner, resulting in his death.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Alabama prosecuted Barbara Bonner for manslaughter in an Alabama trial court.
- At trial, Bonner asserted a claim of self-defense and made an offer of proof to introduce expert testimony regarding battered woman syndrome.
- The trial court sustained the State's objection and refused to allow the expert testimony, ruling that its potential for jury confusion outweighed its probative value.
- A jury convicted Bonner of manslaughter.
- Bonner, as appellant, appealed her conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, arguing the trial court erred in excluding the expert testimony.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit reversible error by excluding expert testimony on battered woman syndrome when a defendant claiming self-defense has established a factual predicate of abuse by the victim?
Opinions:
Majority - McMillan, J.
Yes. A trial court commits reversible error by excluding expert testimony on battered woman syndrome when a defendant has established a sufficient factual predicate of abuse and claims self-defense. The court reasoned that a proper factual predicate had been established through testimony from police and other witnesses about the history of abuse. This expert testimony is not intended to create a new defense or excuse the crime, but rather to help the jury understand the reasonableness of the defendant's actions from the perspective of a person in her circumstances. The court found that such testimony is crucial to dispel common layperson misconceptions, such as why a battered woman might not leave her abuser, which directly impacts the credibility of her self-defense claim. The trial court's fear that the testimony would confuse the jury was unfounded; in fact, the court held that the testimony would clarify the issue of self-defense and provide the jury with information beyond the understanding of the average person.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the admissibility of expert testimony on battered woman syndrome in Alabama as a crucial component of a self-defense claim for a defendant with a history of being abused. It clarifies that the evidence's purpose is not to establish an excuse like insanity, but to support a justification defense by contextualizing the defendant's perception of imminent danger. By emphasizing that this testimony helps a jury understand the 'reasonableness' of the defendant's actions, the ruling makes it more difficult for trial courts to exclude such evidence on grounds of confusion or prejudice once a factual history of abuse is shown. This precedent strengthens the ability of defendants who are victims of domestic violence to present a complete and understandable self-defense narrative to a jury.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Bonner v. State (1998)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"