## Facts

- Joyce Bernice Hawthorne shot and killed her husband, Aubrey Hawthorne.
- She asserted self-defense, contending she reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to herself or her children in the context of domestic abuse.
- In an earlier prosecution, the State obtained a recorded statement that an appellate court held coerced and involuntary, directing that the statement, confessions, and related evidence be excluded at retrial.
- At Hawthorne’s first trial, she testified in her own defense; she was convicted of first-degree murder, and that conviction was reversed due to the coerced statement.
- On retrial, Hawthorne was convicted of second-degree murder.
- At the second trial, the State used Hawthorne’s testimony from the first trial to impeach her.
- The defense sought to introduce expert testimony on battered-woman syndrome to assist the jury in evaluating the reasonableness element of self-defense; the trial court excluded the proffered expert testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether the State may impeach a defendant at a retrial with the defendant’s testimony from a prior trial when that testimony may have been induced by an illegally obtained confession previously held inadmissible.
2. Whether expert testimony on battered-woman syndrome is admissible to assist the jury in assessing the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief in the necessity of deadly force for self-defense.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the second-degree murder conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that the State improperly used Hawthorne’s prior-trial testimony for impeachment because the State failed to carry its burden to show the testimony was not induced by the earlier illegal confession.
- The court addressed battered-woman-syndrome evidence for guidance on remand, holding that such expert testimony may be admissible in a self-defense case if standard expert-admissibility requirements are satisfied.
- The court rejected a categorical bar on battered-woman-syndrome testimony and indicated it is relevant to the reasonableness element of self-defense, not limited to insanity-based defenses.

## Legal Principles

- When a defendant’s prior testimony is arguably induced by the prosecution’s use of an illegally obtained confession, the testimony is inadmissible for impeachment at a later trial unless the State proves the illegality did not induce the testimony.
- Expert testimony may be admitted if: (1) the expert is qualified; (2) the state of scientific knowledge permits a reasonable expert opinion; and (3) the subject matter is beyond the understanding of the average lay juror.
- In self-defense cases, expert testimony on battered-woman syndrome can be relevant to whether the defendant reasonably perceived imminent danger and the necessity of deadly force, provided it satisfies ordinary expert-evidence standards.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the State used prior testimony that it had not shown was independent of a previously excluded coerced confession, and it instructed that battered-woman-syndrome expert testimony may be admitted on retrial when it meets standard requirements for expert evidence and bears on the reasonableness element of self-defense.


Hawthorne v. State, 408 So. 2d 801 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)