Limitations of Expert Testimony on Battered Woman Syndrome

Facts of the Case

On March 18, 2006, Megan Goff shot her estranged husband William Goff 15 times, killing him. Mrs. Goff reported that he had been physically and emotionally abusive to her during their seven-year marriage. On January 18, 2006, Mrs. Goff called the sheriff, stating that the abuse had escalated to include their children. Mr. Goff and 63 guns were removed from the home. The following day, Mrs. Goff obtained a civil protection order, and she and the children moved to a shelter for victims of domestic violence.

On March 17, 2006, Mr. Goff allegedly called her, stating that he intended to kill her and the children on March 20, 2006. This was a significant date, because it was the anniversary of the first time the couple had had intercourse and was Mrs. Goff's mother's birthday. The next day, armed with two guns, Mrs. Goff went to Mr. Goff's home. Mrs. Goff stated that she had wanted to talk him out of harming the children. Mr. Goff had reiterated his intent to kill her and the children. Mrs. Goff reported that she believed that he was going to kill her right then, and she shot him, emptying both guns of ammunition. Mrs. Goff then raised the affirmative defense of self-defense based on battered woman syndrome.

The state requested to have Mrs. Goff examined by their expert to determine whether her actions were related to BWS. Though Mrs. Goff objected, the trial court ruled that if she was raising the defense, the state had the right to have her evaluated by their expert. The defense expert, Dr. Bobby Miller, opined that Mrs. Goff had symptoms of BWS and that she reasonably believed that she and her children were in imminent danger of being killed. At trial, Mrs. Goff objected to the testimony of the state's expert, because it violated her right to avoid self-incrimination. The state's expert, Dr. Phillip Resnick, did not diagnose BWS. He testified about the many inconsistencies found between what Mrs. Goff told him and what she had told others. He stated that he could not offer an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty regarding BWS, because he could not be certain that Mrs. Goff was telling the truth.

Mrs. Goff waived her right to a jury and was found guilty of aggravated murder, with the judge stating in his ruling that Dr. Resnick's testimony was helpful in reaching his verdict. Mrs. Goff appealed, claiming that information from the state's compelled psychiatric evaluation used in her trial violated her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed Mrs. Goff's conviction, stating that raising the BWS defense and using her own psychiatric expert amounted to waiving her privilege against self-incrimination. She appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Ruling and Reasoning

Three major issues were considered on appeal: the appropriateness of expert testimony in the BWS defense, the appropriateness of compelled psychiatric examinations, and the placement of limits on the state expert's testimony. Regarding inclusion of expert testimony on BWS, the Ohio Supreme Court cited previous cases of precedent allowing this testimony. Expert testimony on BWS addresses the second element of the affirmative defense of self-defense, specifically the “bona fide belief that she was in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm and that her only means of escape was the use of force ” (State v. Thomas, 673 N.E.2d 1339, 1342 (Ohio 1997)). Because the state of Ohio has a subjective test for self-defense, expert testimony to determine the defendant's state of mind at the time of the act is crucial. State v. Koss, 551 N.E.2d 970 (Ohio 1990), allowed expert testimony to prove this element of self-defense and the General Assembly established that BWS “is a matter of commonly accepted scientific knowledge” (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2901.06 (1990)) that is beyond the ken of lay jurors.

Regarding whether compelled psychiatric examinations by the State's expert violated Mrs. Goff's right against self-incrimination, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. They agreed with the appeals court that if the defendant raises the defense and uses an expert, the state is entitled to its own expert examination and testimony. They further clarified this decision by indicating that if the defense expert had testified only to the general characteristics of BWS, then the state could not have had its own expert evaluation. However, if the defense claims that the defendant has BWS, then “a limited examination by the state's expert concerning battered woman syndrome and its effect on the defendant's behavior” (Goff, p 1086) is allowed. They agreed with the appeals court that if a defendant raises the BWS defense, it is similar to testifying and essentially waives the right to protection against self-incrimination.

On whether there should be limits on the testimony of the state's expert in a BWS case, the Ohio Supreme Court determined that expert testimony should be limited to “testimony about the syndrome in general, testimony regarding whether the defendant experienced the syndrome, and testimony concerning whether the syndrome accounts for the requisite belief of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm to justify the use of the force in question” (Goff, p 1087). In this case, when the state's expert commented on the discrepancies of Mrs. Goff's statements and raised her credibility as an issue, the expert became essentially another cross-examiner. This testimony was compared with Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981), regarding statements made by a defendant during a competency evaluation and later used at the capital sentencing phase. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Dr. Resnick's commenting on Mrs. Goff's discrepancies to be similar to recounting “unwarned statements in a post arrest custodial setting” as in Estelle (p. 467). The court held that expert testimony should be limited to the nature of BWS and whether the defendant met its characteristics. Other testimony by the expert should not be allowed. Therefore, the case was remanded.