TANIA RENEE WALLACE-BEY v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Arthur, Nov. 2, 2017,
Battered Spouse Syndrome – Evidence – Evidence of abuse by people other than the victim may be admissible if it lays the foundation for an expert opinion about how that abuse would have affected a defendant suffering from Battered Spouse Syndrome

Facts:
In 2007, Wallace-Bey shot and killed her boyfriend, Julius Whaley, alleging that he had raped her and afterward she had shot him. Wallace-Bey had ingested sleeping pills and alcohol. Evidence showed that she had been planning to commit suicide for several days and had just bought the sleeping pills that morning. The gun was purchased months earlier. A note seeking forgiveness was found outside penned in Wallace-Bey’s handwriting with Whaley’s blood on it. Other evidence of a planned suicide was also uncovered at various locations.
In 2009, Wallace-Bey was convicted of murder.
5 years later, she was granted a new trial because she received “ineffective assistance of counsel” when her defense attorney failed to investigate whether she was suffering from battered spouse syndrome at the time of the shooting.
At her 2016 trial, Wallace-Bey tried to present evidence of Battered-Spouse Syndrome. However, the trial judge would not allow her to testify about any of the demeaning or abusive things that Whaley said to her.
Some of these objections were sustained under the belief that they were hearsay, even where offered only to show their affect on Wallace-Bey.
Wallace-Bey was convicted once again of murder.
Wallace-Bey appealed, arguing that the judge improperly limited the evidence she was allowed to present to the jury and should not have allowed the State to ask one witness about the credibility of another witness.

Held:
The Court of Special Appeals agreed with Wallace-Bey. The trial court was wrong to limit evidence of abuse that would have allowed the jury to understand Wallace-Bey’s state of mind.

“Battered Spouse Syndrome” – “Battered Spouse Syndrome” means the psychological condition of a victim of repeated physical and psychological abuse by a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, or former cohabitant which is also recognized in the medical and scientific community as the “Battered Woman’s Syndrome”
Battered Spouse Syndrome – Two key aspects to the syndrome are: 1) learned helplessness (explaining why the victim does not leave or take other action) and 2) heightened sensitivity to the abuser’s behavior (warning signs of impending assault; threat of danger not outwardly recognizable as such)
“Battered Spouse Syndrome” – This rule of evidence only applies in cases where a defendant has been charged with murder or manslaughter (including attempt), as well as assault in the first degree, where the victim is the alleged abuser.
“Battered Spouse Syndrome” – This statute is NOT a defense itself. It just allows the judge/jury to hear evidence relating to self-defense. This evidence will be admitted even if the battered spouse was the aggressor, used excessive force, or failed to retreat.
Battered Spouse Syndrome – Foundation- Where a defendant offers “foundational evidence which, if believed, would establish the requisite pattern of abuse sufficient to provide a base for an expert opinion as to the battered [spouse] syndrome, it should be admitted, so that it can be followed by the expert testimony.”

Self-Defense – Self-defense claims are divided into two types: complete and partial (formerly known as “perfect” and “imperfect”)
Homicide- Complete Self-Defense – “Perfect” self-defense Is a complete defense to murder or manslaughter. If the defendant shows that he acted in perfect self-defense, he cannot be found guilty.
Homicide- Perfect Self-Defense- A perfect self-defense claims requires proof that the individual:
(1) Had reason to think he was in either imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his potential assailant
(2) In fact believed he was in this danger
(3) was not the aggressor and did not provoke the conflict; and
(4) used no more force than called for under the circumstances
Note: While referred to as “perfect” self-defense, the standard is reasonableness and not actual perfection.

Homicide – Imperfect Self-Defense – Imperfect self-defense is not a complete defense, but it does show that there was no malice in the killing. Therefore it will reduce murder to manslaughter.
Imperfect Self-Defense- This partial self-defense requires only that the individual actually believed he was in danger that called for the amount of force used, even if that belief was unreasonable.
Battered Spouse Syndrome- Self Defense- Violence is frequently “imminent” in battered spouse cases because “[i]n a cyclical, abusive relationship the threate[ned] violence will come to fruition—it is often only a matter of when”
Imperfect self-defense – Imperfect self-defense negates the element of malice, not premeditation. The fact that violence was planned in advance does not necessarily negate a claim of partial self-defense.

Hearsay – Hearsay is a statement (something said/written/done to get a point across), outside of trial, offered into evidence in order to prove that what the person “said” (or wrote or did) was true.
Hearsay – For something to be “hearsay,” it must: 1) be a “statement” (an assertion of fact) and 2) be offered at trial to prove the truth of that statement
Hearsay- Orders and commands are not “assertions” and therefore are not hearsay
For example: “Stop!” can not be true and cannot be untrue
From the case: Telling Wallace-Bey to “get naked” and saying “you are not leaving” were orders, not assertions. Therefore, they could not be hearsay and should have been admitted as it was relevant.
From the case: Telling Wallace-Bey “you need to learn to take the dick” could possibly be an assertion, but it was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Therefore, it was also not hearsay and should have been admitted as it was relevant.

Hearsay – Hearsay is generally not allowed in a trial because 1) it is unreliable and 2) the Sixth Amendment gives a defendant the right to confront witnesses against him
Note: But if a statement is not used for its truth, it may still be allowed in court. Someone saying “Bob shot me” would be hearsay to prove that Bob shot that person. However, it would not be hearsay if used to prove the person was still alive when they spoke with the officer; there is no reliability issue there because we’re not relying on the truthfulness of the person not in court.
From the case: Objecting to something just because someone said it is “as nonsensical as it is automatic.”

Battered Spouse Syndrome- Hearsay – Testimony about words spoken by the victim to the defendant can be particularly probative in cases where the defendant raises the issue of battered spouse syndrome.

Battered Spouse Syndrome- Evidence- All three phases of the cycle of violence at the center of the syndrome may involve words in addition to actions: expressions of hostility during the tension-building phase; “verbal aggression” during acute battering incidents; and apologies, requests for forgiveness, and promises to change in the contrition phase.

Battered Spouse Syndrome – Evidence – the Battered Spouse Syndrome statute allows the court to admit evidence of … “repeated physical and psychological abuse of the defendant perpetrated by an individual who is the victim”

Battered Spouse Syndrome – Evidence – Evidence of abuse by people other than the victim may be admissible if it lays the foundation for an expert opinion about how that abuse would have affected a defendant affected by Battered Spouse Syndrome

Battered Spouse Syndrome – Evidence – Evidence of abuse by people other than the victim may be limited to the extent that it is necessary for the jury to understand and meaningfully evaluate the expert opinions on Battered Spouse Syndrome in the case

Battered Spouse Syndrome – Evidence – In a BSS case, an expert may testify about the history of BSS and the relationship between BSS and related (contributing to or resulting from) psychological conditions such as PTSD and depression

Evidence – “Were they lying” questions- Whether a witness believes or disbelieves another witness is irrelevant, and so a witness is not allowed to testify about whether or not they believe that another witness is lying