Opinion ID: 1412175
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of Expert Witness on Battered Woman's Syndrome

Text: Appellant asserts that the trial court's failure to allow introduction of expert testimony to rebut the state's evidence about BWS is reversible error warranting that the verdict be set aside and a new trial granted. The hurdle Appellant must overcome to establish such error is fairly high as [t]he admissibility of testimony by an expert witness is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's decision will not be reversed unless clearly wrong. Syl. Pt. 6, Helmick v. Potomac Edison Co., 185 W.Va. 269, 406 S.E.2d 700 (1991). The trial court made pre-trial rulings about the use of BWS experts, concluding that unless the state offered evidence regarding BWS then no expert testimony about the issue would be permitted. The state reserved the right to call such an expert, but elected not to do so during trial. Appellant's claim is that even though the state did not call the expert at trial, the state elicited testimony which used terms and concepts commonly associated with BWS which should have served to open the door for Appellant's expert to testify. The record shows that no testimony or other evidence was introduced during the trial which established a connection between the questioned terms or concepts and BWS, so we fail to see how the testimony was relevant and would serve to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence. W.Va. R. of Evid. 702. See Gilman v. Choi, 185 W.Va. 177, 406 S.E.2d 200 (1990) (Rule 702 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence is concerned primarily with the relevancy of expert testimony). The trial court wisely exercised discretion by excluding such testimony, which more likely would have confused rather than enlightened the jury.