Opinion ID: 1119473
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Application to These Facts

Text: Turning to the facts of this case, for the most part defendant's account of events leading to the shooting did not require the filter of an expert's opinion to assist in determining the question of reasonableness. She presented a relatively straightforward claim of self-defense the jury could either accept or reject as such. According to defendant, Hampton had been physically and verbally abusive for most of the year they lived together. His threats and acts of violence had been increasing for several weeks prior to the fateful evening. Although he liked guns and owned several, he had never shot at her until the previous night. On the way home from the mountains the next day, he pointed out what he thought would be a good place to kill her because no one would find the body for awhile. Just minutes before the shooting with the gun lying within easy reach, he told her [t]his time he would not miss. She then grabbed the weapon as he appeared about to do the same. While she was holding him at bay, he reached for her arm at which point she apparently shot him. On their face, nothing in these facts lies beyond the experience of the average reasonable person or the ken of the average juror. (See State v. Griffiths, supra, 610 P.2d at p. 524.) At the same time, defendant also testified to facts implicating characteristics of BWS that correspond to the objective element of self-defense. Consistent with his threats, Hampton began hitting her more frequently when he got off parole. The night before, he was getting crazy asking for the gun, which he then shot in her direction narrowly missing her. At that moment, he had a look on his face that defendant had seen before but not this bad; he wasn't the same person. As to events surrounding Hampton's death, defendant related that shortly before she grabbed the gun, the two were screaming and arguing; then all of a sudden, he got quiet for a minute or two, and, then, he just snapped. A few moments later, he moved from the kitchen toward the gun saying, This time, bitch, when I shoot at you, I won't miss. At this point, she knew he would shoot me and was scared to death not only because of Hampton's threats and prior violence but also because of his very, very heavy walk indicating he was mad. She had no doubt he would kill her if she did not kill him first. As they confronted each other in the kitchen, he looked crazy. She assumed he was going for the gun when he reached for her arm and shot him. As relevant to this testimony, Dr. Bowker explained generally that with the cycles of violence typifying BWS the severity tends to escalate over time. Battered women develop a heightened awareness of this escalation as threats and physical abuse become increasingly menacing. A sense of the batterer's omnipotence due to his dominance may augment this hypervigilance, causing the woman to believe all the more he will act on his threats of violence. Bowker also discussed some specifics arguably relating to defendant's objective perception of imminent harm: [T]he escalation had been such, particularly the night before, where [Hampton] actually shot at her that it would be pretty hard to doubt the seriousness. A difference, I think, [between Hampton's last threat and previous ones] is that [defendant] felt for the first time that he really intended to do it and, you know, my experience with battered women who kill in self-defense their abusers, it's always related to their perceived change of what's going on in a relationship. They become very sensitive to what sets off batterers. They watch for this stuff very carefully. [¶] Anybody who is abused over a period of time becomes sensitive to the abuser's behavior and when she sees a change acceleration begin in that behavior, it tells them something is going to happen and usually the abuser said things specifically like `I'm really going to kill you this time,' and, you know, they don't admit to that something happens that there's a label put on it by the abuser which was certainly true in Albert's case and that's intensification or an acceleration of the process is what leads to some self-defensive action which is beyond anything that the woman has ever done before. This testimony could assist the jury in determining whether a reasonable person in defendant's situation would have perceived from the totality of the circumstances imminent peril of serious bodily injury or death. Absent the expert's explanation, the average juror might be unduly skeptical that a look, footstep, or tone of voice could in fact signal impending grave harm or that a reasonable person would be able accurately to assess the need to take self-defensive action on that basis. ( State v. Kelly, supra, 478 A.2d at p. 378.) Accordingly, the trial court erred in categorically precluding consideration of evidence relevant to this purpose rather than giving a properly worded limiting instruction.