Opinion ID: 1130825
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: battered child syndrome

Text: The first question raised in this case is if expert testimony regarding the battered child syndrome is generally admissible in appropriate cases to aid in the proof of self-defense. Increasingly, children accused of parricide have sought to introduce evidence of this psychological theory in an effort to explain their actions. Joelle Anne Moreno, Killing Daddy: Developing a Self-Defense Strategy for the Abused Child, 137 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1281, 1285 (1989). The admissibility of the battered child syndrome is a question of first impression in Washington. [1, 2] The process for determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence involves a 2-part inquiry. First, does the proposed testimony satisfy the Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 34 A.L.R. 145 (D.C. Cir.1923) standard for admissibility of novel scientific evidence? And second, if so, is expert testimony on this syndrome properly admissible under ER 702? State v. Cauthron, 120 Wn.2d 879, 885, 846 P.2d 502 (1993). The first part of the admissibility inquiry, known as the Frye test, is well established: [E]vidence deriving from a scientific theory or principle is admissible only if that theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 719, 684 P.2d 651 (1984). In applying this test, our purpose is not to second-guess the scientific community. Instead, [t]his inquiry turns on the level of recognition accorded to the scientific principle involved  we look for general acceptance in the appropriate scientific community. Cauthron, at 887. We review the trial court's decision to admit novel scientific evidence de novo. Cauthron, at 887. Originally developed as a physical diagnosis for describing child abuse, the battered child syndrome has come to describe both the physiological and psychological effects of a prolonged pattern of physical, emotional and sexual abuse. See generally Steven R. Hicks, Admissibility of Expert Testimony on the Psychology of the Battered Child, 11 L. & Psychol. Rev. 103, 108-11 (1987). Such abuse typically lasts over a significant period of time and tends to operate in recurring patterns. Victims of chronic abuse suffer from a general psychological disorder known as post-traumatic stress disorder. PTSD is an anxiety-related disorder which occurs in response to traumatic events outside the normal range of human experience. As Dr. Olson testified at trial, child abuse is an extreme stressor that exceeds a child's capacity to cope with it or integrate it into their personality, their awareness, their consciousness. RP, at 781. Although PTSD is classified as a mental disorder, it is one of the few kinds of psychiatric disorders that is considered a normal response to an abnormal situation.  Paul A. Mones, When a Child Kills: Abused Children Who Kill Their Parents 63 (1991). The resulting psychological response to abuse-induced PTSD is often referred to as the battered child syndrome. [5] One principal characteristic of the syndrome is hypervigilance: Battered children, unlike those children who are not abused, live in an environment where abuse is commonplace and may occur at anytime with or without warning. Battered children, therefore often appear to be what researchers have termed as hypervigilant. Such a hypervigilant child is acutely aware of his or her environment and remains on the alert for any signs of danger, events to which the unabused child may not attend. The child's history of abusive encounters with his or her battering parent leads him or her to be overly cautious and to perceive danger in subtle changes in the parent's expressions or mannerisms. Such hypermonitoring behavior, as it has been termed, means the child becomes sensitized to these subtle changes and constantly monitors the environment (particularly the abuser) for those signals which suggest danger is imminent. (Footnote omitted.) Hicks, at 103-04. Children who suffer from prolonged abuse develop a very finely tuned antenna for impending violence [which] ... picks up low-level cues that people who have not been traumatized would not see. Mones, at 63 (quoting Dr. Lenore Walker). Another key characteristic of the syndrome is known as learned helplessness. Although the common expectation might be for the abused child to seek outside help, there are compelling psychological reasons that make seeking and getting help the rare exception, not the norm. Mones, at 33. For children in particular, such a phenomenon is especially severe. Oftentimes, abused children will have sought outside help from authority figures, as the record indicates Andrew did, without gaining any satisfactory outcome. Other persons within the family are unable to help because they frequently suffer abuse as well. Running away is not a realistic option. In the end, for the battered child, all doors of escape appear closed. [3, 4] Although this court has not ruled on the admissibility of the battered child syndrome, [6] we have previously allowed another related syndrome which presents a particularly close parallel to the battered child syndrome. In State v. Allery, 101 Wn.2d 591, 682 P.2d 312 (1984), we recognized the battered woman syndrome. Both syndromes find their basis in abuse-induced PTSD and elicit a similar response from the abuse victim. For purposes of the Frye test, we can see no reason to treat these two syndromes differently. Given the close relationship between the battered woman and battered child syndromes, the same reasons that justify admission of the former apply with equal force to the latter. As one commentator has noted: [T]he battered woman syndrome and the battered child syndrome constitute a single psychological disorder for purposes of expert testimony.... [T]he differences between the two groups are negligible. Hicks, at 106; see also Diana J. Ensign, Note, Links Between the Battered Woman Syndrome and the Battered Child Syndrome: An Argument for Consistent Standards in the Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Family Abuse Cases, 36 Wayne L. Rev. 1619 (1990). If anything, for battered children, the effects of PTSD are amplified. Children are entirely dependent on the parent for financial and emotional support. They are extremely vulnerable and tend to place great trust in their parents. It is not as easy for a child as it is for an adult to leave a troubled home. See RCW 13.32A (Family Reconciliation Act). Moreover, unlike the battered adult, a child has no outside context with which to compare the abusive reality. For these reasons, we conclude that the battered child syndrome is the functional and legal equivalent of the battered woman syndrome, and find that it is admissible under the Frye test. The second part of the admissibility inquiry is governed by ER 702. This rule provides that: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. ER 702. Satisfaction of the ER 702 requirements involves a 2-part inquiry: (1) Does the witness qualify as an expert, and (2) Would the expert testimony be helpful to the trier of fact. Cauthron, 120 Wn.2d at 890. The qualifications of the experts who testified at Andrew's trial were not questioned. As to the other ER 702 inquiry, the same reasons that rendered evidence of the battered woman syndrome helpful to the jury in a self-defense case again apply with equal force to the battered child evidence. Expert testimony regarding the syndrome helps the jury to understand the reasonableness of the defendant's perceptions: Without the aid of expert testimony on the psychology of battered children, the jury will be unable to appreciate the manner in which the abused child differs from the unabused child. Specifically, the jury will be uninformed as to the difference in the way battered children perceive things in their immediate surroundings and react to those perceptions. Expert testimony can help the jury understand the sense of powerlessness, fear, and anxiety which permeate the battered child's world. The expert testimony, therefore, will aid the jury in evaluating the manner in which a battered child perceives the imminence of danger and his or her tendency to use deadly force to repel that danger. (Footnotes omitted.) Hicks, at 104. The jury can then use such knowledge to determine whether the defendant's belief that he was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or loss of life was reasonable under the circumstances. Allery, at 597. We hold, therefore, that as a general matter, evidence of the battered child syndrome is admissible to help prove self-defense whenever such a defense is relevant. The underlying principles of the battered child syndrome are generally accepted in the scientific community and satisfy the ER 702 requirements by helping the trier of fact to understand a little-known psychological problem.