 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Garduno6/7/2002
trial testimony. But defendant claims this shows only one brief period of violence, not long enough to trigger the syndrome. We hesitate to say as a matter of law that the two batterings coupled with a serious gunshot wound could be called a brief period of violence that does not qualify as more than a single violent incident as required by Gomez.
In addition, the People in their brief have detailed numerous other incidents reported by the victim to other witnesses. To Deputy Neusel she reported that defendant hit her one and one-half weeks before the shooting resulting in the purple bruise on her left eye and that defendant punched her in the face with his fist a few minutes before she heard the gun go off. In her statements to Sergeant St. Denis, she variously said that defendant hit her on the forehead and left eye about 10:00 p.m. on the night before the shooting and that he hit her about three days before the shooting. In her conversation with social worker Valerie Williams, the victim said defendant hit her approximately three weeks before the shooting. Then at trial, the victim testified that defendant hit her on the right eye about one week before the shooting and that he hit her on the right eye again on the evening before the shooting. She also denied some of the statements she had made to the other witnesses.
In listening to all this testimony and observing the demeanor of the victim as she testified, the trial court concluded there was enough evidence to establish the requisite pattern of abuse specified in Gomez. (See also People v. Gadlin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 587 [For expert testimony to be admissible, there must be sufficient evidence to support a contention that the syndrome applies to the woman involved, and there must be a contested issue as to which that testimony is probative; couple involved went through battering cycle twice over extended period of time].) The trial court also concluded the victim's credibility was not only at issue, but was a key issue in the case, and thus the expert testimony on battered women's syndrome could help the jury understand conflicting testimony and evaluate the victim's credibility. We find no abuse of discretion.
Moreover, the court in People v. Williams (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1118, reasoned that even one episode of domestic violence could trigger a need for expert testimony: " here is nothing in Evidence Code section 1107 to suggest that the Legislature intended that a batterer get one free episode of domestic violence before admission of evidence to explain why a victim of domestic violence may make inconsistent statements about what occurred and why such a victim may return to the perpetrator." (Id. at p. 1129.) In fact, the statute itself allows the admission of expert testimony regarding battered women's syndrome to explain the behavior and perceptions of victims of domestic violence, except when offered against a criminal defendant to prove the occurrence of the crime at issue, and after a foundation of relevancy is established. We find Williams a better reasoned view.
The function of the jury is to assess the credibility of the witnesses and thus to arrive at the truth of what actually occurred and to determine whether in fact a crime was committed. The circumstances surrounding crimes of domestic violence and the victim's attitude may not fit the normal pattern where the victim of a crime identifies the perpetrator and says, in effect, "That person did it and should be punished." Both experts here testified that domestic violence often creates or fosters certain attitudes and behaviors in the victim that do not accord with the normal response to a crime against the person. Thus expert testimony can be helpful
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|