Opinion ID: 1981028
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Battered Woman's Syndrome Evidence

Text: During its rebuttal, the State called Dr. Ned Esbaum, M.D., a psychiatrist, to testify about battered woman's syndrome. After the prosecutor asked Dr. Esbaum to explain what battered woman's syndrome was, Isaacs' counsel objected: Objection, irrelevancy for this case. There's been no foundation laid for this testimony. I assume that he [Dr. Esbaum] has not examined or interviewed with the, either Maureen Isaacs, or Roger Isaacs in this case. R. at 3156. The prosecutor responded by stating that the testimony was: relevant because it is going to be direct rebuttal to the motivation that the Defendant would have the jurors believe as to relationship between the defendant and his wife during the past months, more over [sic] during the last year of their marriage, up to the time of her death. The doctor is here today in order to explain to the jurors a psychiatrically recognized in its own scientific field phenomena that will offer and [sic] alternative to her motivation for the actions that they themselves have put into evidence. R. at 3157. After the prosecution had established that Dr. Esbaum had neither heard any testimony nor spoken to Maureen or Roger Isaacs or any other witnesses, defense counsel stated: Well, Judge, I'd have no objection to the testimony if they had some relevance to this case, but uh, the State is attempting to use this witness simply to provide a theory of the case, and it's not going to be based on any of the facts that are in this specific case. R. at 3158. The court ruled that the testimony was relevant because as I understand the State they intend to bring this witness in to refute, rebut, or at least to explain why a woman who has been allegedly battered would continue to go back to, and have an affair with the individual who was doing the battering. R. at 3159. The court permitted the testimony. His testimony was quite elaborate, describing the wife as dependent on the husband, while the husband is a man [who] sets up this relationship with the wife in which he very aggressively takes out all of his frustrations on her. R. at 3160. The scope of rebuttal is a matter within the trial court's discretion and the alleged admittance of irrelevant evidence on rebuttal is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Berkley v. State (1986), Ind., 501 N.E.2d 399, 400 (citing Wells v. State (1982), Ind., 441 N.E.2d 458). Additionally, [r]ebuttal evidence is limited to that which tends to explain, contradict, or disprove evidence offered by the adverse party. Id. (citing Steele v. State (1985), Ind., 475 N.E.2d 1149). As the Michigan Supreme Court has pointed out, [i]n most cases, the battered woman syndrome is offered by the defendant in a case of homicide in which the defendant is claiming self-defense. People v. Christel, 449 Mich. 578, 537 N.W.2d 194, 200 (1995). Expert testimony of battered woman's syndrome introduced against the husband/defendant has been held admissible, however, so long as it is relevant. See id. 537 N.W.2d at 201-05. During his direct examination, Isaacs characterized his relationship with Maureen as daytime friends and nighttime lovers. R. at 2071. The State's purpose for introducing Dr. Esbaum's testimony was to refute the notion that Isaacs and Maureen had a friendly relationship prior to her death. This testimony could have reasonably discredited Isaacs' attempt to bolster his accident/self-defense theory by allowing the jury to conclude that their relationship was not rosy, thereby casting doubt on Isaacs' assertion that he would not have intended to kill Maureen. We therefore conclude that the trial court was within the range of its discretion to decide that this testimony was relevant and that its prejudicial effect did not outweigh its probative value.