Court of Appeal Deems Failure To Introduce Expert Testimony On Intimate Partner Battering IAC And Grants Habeas Relief

Fourteen years ago, a panel of the Second District Court of Appeal rejected the defendant's contention that the failure of her trial counsel to introduce expert testimony on intimate partner battering and its effects constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, it affirmed her conviction for second degree murder of her abusive husband.

Three years later, the California Supreme Court held imperfect or unreasonable self-defense is not a defense but a lesser offense included in the crime of murder. As a result, trial courts must now instruct the jury the People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was not acting in imperfect self-defense whenever the record contains substantial evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant was guilty only of voluntary manslaughter.

The following year, the California Supreme Court held expert testimony concerning intimate partner battering and its effects, expressly made admissible in criminal actions by Evidence Code section 1107 as of January 1, 1992, was relevant in a murder case to the determination of both the subjective existence and objective reasonableness of a defendant’s belief in the need to defend herself or himself.

In light of these developments, defendant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Second District Court of Appeal reconsidered its earlier ruling in her case and concluded that the failure of her trial counsel to introduce expert testimony regarding intimate partner battering and its effects (whether or not a reasonable tactical decision) substantially prejudiced her defense. The Court of Appeal agreed that there was a reasonable probability, sufficient to undermine confidence in the verdict, that the result of her trial would have been different (that is, she may have been convicted of voluntary manslaughter rather than second degree murder) had such evidence been presented. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal vacated the 1991 judgment of conviction and remanded for a new trial.

The unanimous opinion was authored by Presiding Justice Dennis M. Perluss.

In re Walker, no. B190637 (Cal.Ct.App. (2nd Dist., Div. 7) filed 2/5/07)