## Facts

- B.H. reported that her husband, S.H., compelled her to engage in sexual intercourse with her seven-year-old stepson while S.H. watched.
- After leaving S.H. and entering a women’s shelter, B.H. reported the incident to child-protection authorities and later gave a Mirandized statement to prosecutors’ investigators.
- In her pretrial statement, B.H. admitted the sexual act but denied that S.H. threatened her with violence on the day of the incident; she also described prior physical and sexual abuse by S.H.
- At trial, B.H. testified that during the incident S.H. physically restrained her and threatened her if she did not comply; she claimed she minimized S.H.’s role earlier to protect him.
- B.H. asserted a duress defense under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-9 and presented expert testimony that she suffered from battered-woman syndrome; the State presented a rebuttal expert disputing that diagnosis.
- The trial court instructed the jury that the battered-woman-syndrome testimony could be considered only to assess whether B.H. acted recklessly by remaining in the relationship, and not in evaluating duress.
- The jury convicted B.H. of first-degree aggravated sexual assault and second-degree endangering the welfare of a child.
- The Appellate Division reversed; the Supreme Court of New Jersey granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether expert testimony concerning battered-woman syndrome is admissible and relevant to the elements of duress under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-9.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by limiting the jury’s use of battered-woman-syndrome evidence to the defendant’s decision to remain with the abuser, while instructing jurors not to consider it on the duress defense.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal of the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The Court held that battered-woman-syndrome expert testimony may be considered in assessing duress under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-9.
- The Court held the limiting instruction was erroneous because it prevented the jury from using the expert evidence on the central duress inquiry.
- The Court concluded the instructional error was not harmless because it directly impaired the defense theory.

## Legal Principles

- Duress under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-9 requires coercion by actual or threatened unlawful force such that a person of reasonable firmness “in [the defendant’s] situation” would have been unable to resist.
- The “in the defendant’s situation” component permits consideration of circumstances as the defendant reasonably believed them to be, including the effects of prolonged abuse.
- Expert testimony on battered-woman syndrome is relevant to whether the defendant reasonably perceived coercion and lacked a viable alternative to compliance, and may also assist jurors in assessing seemingly counterintuitive conduct (e.g., staying with the abuser or inconsistent accounts).
- Trial courts must not confine battered-woman-syndrome evidence to collateral matters when it bears directly on statutory duress elements; misdirection that removes the evidence from the duress analysis is reversible error.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because battered-woman-syndrome expert testimony was relevant to the statutory duress standard—what a person of reasonable firmness in the defendant’s situation could resist—and the trial court’s instruction improperly barred the jury from considering that evidence on the core duress question.


State v. B.H., 183 N.J. 171 (2005)