## Facts

- Donna Lee Bechtel was prosecuted for first-degree murder for shooting and killing her husband, Kenneth Bechtel, after an episode of alleged assault and threats.
- Bechtel testified the marriage involved repeated domestic violence beginning before the marriage and continuing through the date of the killing, including multiple prior battering incidents.
- On the night of the homicide, Kenneth returned home intoxicated; Bechtel testified he assaulted and threatened her, then entered a temporary lull or unconscious state.
- During the lull, Bechtel obtained a firearm and shot Kenneth; she claimed she reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.
- Before the case went to the jury, the trial court conducted in camera hearings on battered woman syndrome (BWS) and excluded expert BWS testimony, finding it insufficiently accepted, unhelpful to the jury, and potentially manufactured because of the timing of the evaluation.
- The jury convicted Bechtel of first-degree murder and recommended life imprisonment; the trial court imposed a life sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by excluding expert testimony on battered woman syndrome offered to support self-defense.
2. Whether the “imminent danger” element of self-defense must be evaluated in light of the defendant’s circumstances and perceptions formed by a history of battering, including during a lull in an assault.
3. Whether evidence of the victim’s prior threats and conduct, including statements offered to show the defendant’s fear and state of mind, is admissible to support self-defense.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment and sentence and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the trial court erred by excluding expert BWS testimony where offered to assist the jury in evaluating the defendant’s perceptions and claim of self-defense.
- The court concluded that self-defense “imminence” must be understood in a manner that accounts for the defendant’s circumstances and viewpoint in a battering relationship, including threat periods and lulls within an assault.
- The court indicated that evidence of the victim’s threats and prior conduct may be admissible to show the defendant’s apprehension and the reasonableness of her fear, even when not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

## Legal Principles

- Expert testimony on battered woman syndrome may be admissible to assist the jury in understanding a defendant’s perceptions and behavior in assessing self-defense, including misconceptions about why a battered person may not leave or seek help.
- Scientific acceptance and relevance are assessed by whether the testimony will aid the trier of fact; BWS evidence may be treated as related to post-traumatic stress effects and admitted for state-of-mind and reasonableness assessments.
- Deadly force self-defense requires a reasonable belief that force is necessary to protect against imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; in battering cases, “imminent” must be evaluated from the defendant’s viewpoint and in light of the full history and circumstances of the relationship.
- A defendant may reasonably perceive imminent danger during threats preceding violence, immediately before escalation, or during a lull in an assault, depending on the circumstances known to the defendant.
- Evidence of the victim’s prior threats and conduct may be admissible to show the defendant’s apprehension and state of mind relevant to self-defense, even if the statements are not admitted to prove the victim’s actual intent.

## Conclusion

The court reversed and remanded because excluding expert battered woman syndrome testimony and related contextual evidence prevented the jury from properly evaluating self-defense, including whether the defendant reasonably perceived imminent danger from her standpoint given the history of abuse.


Bechtel v. State, 840 P.2d 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992)