Expert testimony concerning battered woman syndrome.

In criminal cases expert testimony is admissible if “the court determines that scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue . . . .” MRE 702. But before the trial court admits expert testimony, the court must determine that the evidence is “from a recognized discipline, relevant and helpful to the trier of fact, and presented by a qualified witness.” People v Daoust, 228 Mich App 1, 9-10 (1998), overruled on other grounds by People v Miller, 482 Mich 540 (2008).

In People v Christel, 449 Mich 578, 591 (1995), the Supreme Court determined that expert testimony concerning battered-woman syndrome may be admissible “when appropriate, [to] explain the generalities of characteristics of the syndrome.” The Christel Court observed that, “when a witness’ actions or responses are incomprehensible to average people,” expert testimony is generally needed. Id. at 592. However, the testimony must be “‘limited to a description of the uniqueness of a specific behavior brought out at trial.’” Id. at  591 (citation omitted). Moreover, the expert may not offer an opinion about whether the victim is a battered woman, whether the defendant is a batterer, whether the defendant is guilty, or whether the victim is being truthful. Id. The testimony must also meet the threshold  requirements of relevancy and helpfulness. Id. at 592.   

It has been suggested that expert testimony concerning battered-woman syndrome must be raised by the defense—not by the prosecution. But the Christel Court explained that such testimony may be permissible to explain the “uniqueness of a specific behavior brought out at trial,” and specifically observed that it may be introduced “in the prosecution’s case-in-chief[.]”  Id. at 591, 594. Indeed, Christel does not stand for the proposition that the defense must be the party to introduce the evidence. Defendant cites People v Beckley, 434 Mich 691 (1990), to support his proposition. However, Beckley dealt with evidence of child sexual abuse. Although both cases addressed types of syndrome testimony, Christel is directly applicable and does not support defendant’s position.