On March 1999, Florida’s Supreme Court effectively granted Florida women the ability to rely upon battered spouse syndrome as a defense to killing their abuser. Prior to the court’s decision in Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1999), an abused woman’s ability to justifiably defend herself...
www.floridabar.org
June 2000
Abused women who live in fear for their lives and who ultimately kill their abuser may suffer from battered spouse syndrome. Battered spouse syndrome is created by a cycle of physical abuse within a relationship. Typically, there are three phases in a cycle. Phase one involves minor battering incidents, verbal abuse, and attempts by the woman to placate the man. Phase two involves an “acute battering incident” where the woman is severely beaten. Phase three is one of contrition and loving behavior on the part of the male, which reinforces the woman’s hope for her mate’s reform. Some time later, phase one begins again. The cumulative effect of this cycle of abuse is that the woman becomes perpetually fearful of the man and feels helpless to improve her situation. Killing her abuser becomes her only escape from the relationship.
In the first Florida case to mention battered spouse syndrome, the First District Court of Appeal in
Hawthorne v. State, 408 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), ruled to allow testimony by Dr. Lenore Walker to explain the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief that she was in imminent danger,
if the trial court decided that, “Dr. Walker is qualified and that the subject is sufficiently developed and can support an expert opinion.” In most cases where evidence of battered spouse syndrome is admitted, it is solely for this limited purpose. Battered spouse syndrome is only a small part of the traditionally narrow self-defense doctrine. It is not, itself, a complete defense.
To justify homicide under any claim of self defense, a defendant must establish the presence of three elements:
1) the defendant believed she must use force against an imminent threat of harm;
2) the amount of force used was proportionate to the threatened harm; and
3) the defendant retreated to the greatest degree reasonably possible.
Evidence that a woman suffers from battered spouse syndrome addresses part one of this standard, namely, whether the woman honestly feared for her life.
Part three of this tripartite self defense standard, the duty to retreat, is inapplicable in a defendant’s own home because of the so-called “castle doctrine,” or privilege of nonretreat. The castle doctrine provides that if an assailant threatens a victim with violence in the victim’s own home, the victim may turn aggressor without any duty of retreat, and still be able to justify his actions by claiming self defense.
This theory is premised on the notion that “a man’s home is his castle,” hence the name “castle doctrine.” Justice Cardozo explained, “It is not now and never has been the law that a man assailed in his own dwelling is bound to retreat. If assailed there, he may stand his ground and resist the attack. He is under no duty to take to the fields and the highways, a fugitive from his own home.” Florida, and most other states, has adopted the castle doctrine exception to self defense’s duty to retreat. Yet, the castle doctrine is not absolute.
