Court Opinion

ID: 9854929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:17:08.894142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:36.787413
License: Public Domain

Carley, Justice.
In an unprovoked attack, Anthony Chester fatally shot his girl friend. He fled the scene, but surrendered to police within an hour of the homicide and gave a statement wherein he admitted firing the fatal shots. He was tried before a jury and found guilty of malice murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. For the murder, he was sentenced to life and, for the two possession of a firearm offenses, he was given consecutive five-year sentences. He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdicts.1
1. The evidence is sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find proof of Chester’s guilt of the murder and the two possession of a firearm offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
2. Although Chester introduced expert opinion testimony that he suffered from the battered person syndrome, the following requested charges were not given by the trial court:
Expert testimony regarding the battered person syndrome authorizes a jury to find that, notwithstanding any lapse in *10time since the mate’s last assault, Mr. Chester honestly was trying to defend himself although his mate was not at the moment physically attacking him. . . . You may consider the testimony of an expert witness on the battered person syndrome to help explain why a person suffering the battered man syndrome would not leave his mate, would not inform the police or friends, and would fear increased aggression against himself.
(Emphasis supplied.) Urging that the syndrome was his sole defense, Chester enumerates as error the refusal to give these requested charges.
In this state, the battered person syndrome is not a separate defense and expert testimony as to that syndrome is admissible only to assist the jury in evaluating a defendant’s claim of self-defense. Pugh v. State, 260 Ga. 874, 876 (3) (401 SE2d 270) (1991); Chapman v. State, 259 Ga. 706, 707 (4) (386 SE2d 129) (1989); Smith v. State, 247 Ga. 612, 619 (277 SE2d 678) (1981). Nothing whatsoever in OCGA § 16-3-21 or in the Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions regarding the defense of justification authorizes the use of deadly force to defend against the mere verbal threat of physical force. OCGA § 16-3-21 (a) provides, in relevant part, that the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm is authorized only if one “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or a third person. . . .” It has long been the law of this state that mere verbal threats, unaccompanied by any physical menaces, will not authorize the use of such deadly force as to justify a homicide. Davenport v. State, 245 Ga. 845, 846 (1) (268 SE2d 337) (1980); Moore v. State, 228 Ga. 662, 663 (1) (187 SE2d 277) (1972).
It can not be the law that mere verbal threats alone will justify a homicide. To maintain such a doctrine would be absurd. . . . [Tjhere must be something more than mere threats; there “must be an appearance of imminent danger;” the “means of inflicting the threatened injury must apparently be at hand, and there must be some manifestation of an intention to inflict the injury presently.”
Taylor v. State, 121 Ga. 348, 355 (9) (49 SE 303) (1904). “[M]ental anguish does not constitute ‘great bodily harm’; therefore, its alleged infliction does not justify killing the inflictor.” Chancellor v. State, 165 Ga. App. 365, 366 (2) (301 SE2d 294) (1983).
Since the battered person syndrome is not a separate defense and expert testimony as to that syndrome is admissible only to assist *11the jury in evaluating a defendant’s claim of self-defense, it must necessarily follow that, when a defendant relies upon the battered person syndrome to justify his use of deadly force against a homicide victim, he must show that he previously was subjected to acts of actual or attempted violence committed by the victim. Pugh v. State, supra at 874 (defendant “had been severely abused throughout the seven years of her marriage to the victim”); Chapman v. State, supra at 706 (“[d]uring the courtship and their marriage, the deceased would frequently beat” the defendant); Chapman v. State, 258 Ga. 214, 215 (2) (367 SE2d 541) (1988) (“the defendant testified that she shot the victim in self-defense after numerous beatings”); Smith v. State, supra at 613 (victim “had beaten [the defendant] periodically”). If mere contemporaneous verbal threats, standing alone, cannot authorize reliance by a non-battered person upon the justification defense to a murder charge, then certainly mere previous verbal threats, standing alone, likewise cannot authorize reliance upon the battered person syndrome in a murder case. In a murder case, the sole purpose of battered syndrome evidence is to show that, although the “imminent” danger element of a justification defense may not have been present at the time the fatal blow was struck, that element nevertheless had been present in the past.
[E]vidence of the syndrome is admissible in an attempt to show that the defendant had a mental state necessary for the defense of justification although the actual threat of harm does not immediately precede the homicide.
Chapman v. State, supra at 708 (4). If the “imminent” danger element did not exist in the past, then there can be no present justification for the homicide. Scientific research and study may show that threats and emotional abuse can substitute for physical abuse as a factor in the creation of the battered person syndrome. However, scientific research and study cannot change this state’s long-standing law of justification so as to authorize one against whom only verbal threats were made to evade criminal culpability for the homicide of the one who verbally threatened him. Justification is a legal, not a scientific, concept and to maintain such a doctrine of that concept in this state is no less absurd today than it was when Taylor v. State, supra, was decided almost 100 years ago.
Although the evidence shows that the victim previously made verbal threats to Chester, there is no evidence that she ever had committed any act of actual or attempted violence against him. It follows that, although an expert witness opined that Chester suffered from the battered person syndrome as the result of the victim’s mere verbal threats, there was no evidence that Chester was in fact a battered *12person who could claim self-defense as against the murder victim. Therefore, the battered person syndrome was not relevant to Chester’s claim of self-defense and his refused requests to charge were not adjusted to the evidence. There was no “last assault” by the victim, she never had committed any prior act of “physically attacking” Chester and he could not reasonably have feared “increased aggression” since he had not been the victim of any past aggression. It is never error to refuse to charge on an issue which is not adjusted to the evidence. Bland v. State, 210 Ga. 100, 107 (8) (78 SE2d 51) (1953).
Moreover, even assuming that the battered person syndrome had been relevant to Chester’s claim of self-defense, a trial court’s charge “should contain no such summary of the evidence as might to a jury either seem to be an argument or amount to the expression or intimation of an opinion thereon.” Thomas v. State, 95 Ga. 484, 485 (3) (22 SE 315) (1895). Accordingly, a trial court is not required, “even after request, to specifically point out particular evidence in behalf of the defendants which the jury should specially consider.” Balark v. State, 81 Ga. App. 649, 654 (1) (c) (59 SE2d 524) (1950). Chester’s requests “are more adjusted to the exhortation of counsel than to the impartial clarity which should characterize the instructions of the court,” and this argumentativeness “is sufficient reason for their refusal.” Balark v. State, supra at 654 (1) (c). It follows that it was not error to refuse to give the requested charges. See Pugh v. State, supra at 876 (3).
3. Over objection, the State’s expert witness was allowed to remain in the courtroom during the testimony of Chester’s expert witness and Chester urges that it was error to allow this witness to testify after he violated the rule of sequestration. However, even assuming, without deciding, that the rule was violated by the witness, it was not reversible error to allow him to testify, since a violation of the rule of sequestration goes only to the credibility, rather than the admissibility, of the violating witness’ testimony. Johnson v. State, 258 Ga. 856, 857 (4) (376 SE2d 356) (1989). Compare Childress v. State, 266 Ga. 425 (467 SE2d 865) (1996) (rule of sequestration violated by actions of witness outside of the courtroom).
4. Chester urges that it was error to allow the State’s expert to give testimony regarding the battered person syndrome, since he was not shown to be an expert as to that specific syndrome. However, the record shows that, by virtue of his training and expertise, the State’s witness was eminently qualified as an expert in the general field of forensic psychology. That, as the result of his general expertise, the State’s witness had little regard for the viability of the battered person syndrome in specific would not disqualify him from testifying as to his opinion concerning whether Chester suffered therefrom. See *13Taylor v. State, 261 Ga. 287, 289 (1) (a) (404 SE2d 255) (1991).

Judgments affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Benham, C. J., Fletcher, P. J., Sears and Hunstein, JJ., who concur specially.

 The crimes were committed on August 6, 1993 and Chester was indicted on August 11, 1993. The guilty verdicts were returned on April 1, 1994 and, on that same date, the judgments of conviction and sentences were entered. The motion for new trial was filed on April 29,1994 and, on August 30,1995, that motion was denied and the notice of appeal was filed. The case was docketed in this Court on November 7, 1995 and was orally argued on February 23, 1996.