Facts
- Debra Jeanie Romero lived with her partner, Terrance Romero, who repeatedly beat her and demanded money to support his cocaine addiction.
- Terrance threatened to kill Debra if she left him; after one severe beating, Debra required hospitalization.
- Debra participated with Terrance in four attempted robberies before the charged July 1989 incident.
- In July 1989, victim James Stratton was stopped at a traffic light in his vehicle when Debra approached and entered from the passenger side, claiming she had been beaten.
- Stratton observed Debra as hysterical, with a bruised and swollen face.
- Terrance approached the driver’s side, pointed a gun at Stratton, and demanded money.
- Inside the vehicle, Debra turned off the ignition and told Stratton to give his money to Terrance.
- Stratton managed to drive away, and the incident ended without Terrance obtaining Stratton’s money.
- The State of California charged Debra with five robbery-related offenses arising from this incident and the prior events.
- At trial, Debra admitted participating but raised a duress defense, claiming she acted out of fear Terrance would kill her if she refused.
- Defense counsel knew Debra might suffer from battered-woman syndrome (BWS) and obtained the name of a potential BWS witness but did not consult or call the witness and later offered no reason for the omission.
- The jury convicted Debra, and she sought postconviction relief by petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to present BWS testimony.
Issues
- Did trial counsel provide ineffective assistance by failing, without a reasonable tactical basis, to investigate and present expert testimony on battered-woman syndrome to support Romero’s duress defense?
- If counsel’s performance was deficient, was Romero prejudiced—i.e., is there a reasonable probability the result would have been different had BWS testimony been presented?
Decision
- The Court of Appeal considered Romero’s challenge in a proceeding that included her habeas corpus claim (and related appellate review of the conviction).
- The court held that counsel’s failure to follow through on obtaining BWS testimony, despite awareness of Romero’s history of abuse and the availability of a witness, was deficient performance.
- The court concluded the omission mattered because BWS testimony could have materially supported the duress defense by explaining why Romero might reasonably perceive continuing, inescapable lethal threat from her abuser.
- Applying the prejudice standard, the court found a reasonable probability that competent BWS testimony could have affected the jury’s evaluation of duress and therefore the verdict.
- The court granted habeas relief, set aside the convictions, and returned the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Legal Principles
- Ineffective assistance of counsel requires (1) deficient performance measured against prevailing professional norms and (2) prejudice, meaning a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent counsel’s errors. (Strickland v. Washington framework as applied in California.)
- Defense counsel has a duty to conduct reasonable investigation into defenses and supporting evidence; an omission is not treated as “strategy” when counsel cannot show an informed tactical reason.
- In a case where duress is the central defense and the evidence shows sustained intimate-partner violence and threats, BWS testimony may be admissible to help the factfinder evaluate the reasonableness of the defendant’s fear and actions in context.
- Prejudice is shown when the missing evidence would have given the jury a materially different basis to assess an essential disputed point—here, whether Romero acted under threats of death or great bodily injury that a person of reasonable firmness in her situation could not resist.
- Habeas corpus relief is appropriate when the record demonstrates a constitutional violation affecting the reliability of the conviction and the petitioner meets the governing deficient-performance and prejudice standards.
Conclusion
People v. Romero involves a battered defendant convicted of robbery-related offenses after admitting participation but claiming duress arising from severe abuse and death threats by her partner; the Court of Appeal granted habeas relief because trial counsel, despite knowing BWS evidence was available, failed to investigate and present BWS testimony that could have supported the duress defense and created a reasonable probability of a different verdict.