## Facts

- Susan Daws was charged with murdering her former husband, Dwayne Daws.
- Trial evidence showed a long history of physical abuse by Dwayne against Susan during their marriage.
- After the couple divorced, Susan and Dwayne continued living together.
- On the night of the killing, Susan and Dwayne struggled, Dwayne lunged at Susan, and Susan shot and killed him.
- Susan claimed she acted in self-defense.
- Susan presented evidence and testimony related to battered-woman syndrome (BWS) to explain her fear, her perception of danger, and why she believed deadly force was necessary.
- Susan requested a special jury instruction on BWS that (a) directed jurors to consider whether she was “in fear” because of BWS and (b) stated that a battered woman “may reasonably believe [a use of] force is necessary at a threshold lower” than someone who did not suffer from BWS.
- The trial court refused the proposed BWS instruction and instead instructed the jury on standard Ohio self-defense, while permitting the jury to hear BWS-related evidence.
- The jury found Susan guilty of voluntary manslaughter (a lesser included offense) rather than murder.
- Susan appealed, arguing, among other claimed errors, that the trial court wrongly refused her proposed BWS instruction.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court commit reversible error by refusing to give the defendant’s requested battered-woman-syndrome jury instruction, including language suggesting a “threshold lower” for reasonable use of force?

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the voluntary-manslaughter conviction.
- The trial court did not commit reversible error in refusing the defendant’s proposed BWS instruction.
- The standard self-defense instructions, together with the admission of BWS evidence, adequately allowed the jury to evaluate the self-defense claim under Ohio law.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence and testimony concerning battered-woman syndrome may be admitted to assist the jury in evaluating a defendant’s self-defense claim, including the defendant’s belief that she was in imminent danger and the reasonableness of that belief.
- BWS evidence operates within the existing elements of self-defense; it does not create a separate justification or alter the objective “reasonableness” requirement.
- A trial court has discretion to refuse a requested jury instruction that misstates the law or suggests a different legal standard than the governing self-defense test.
- Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole; an appellate court will not reverse unless an instructional error prejudiced the defendant’s substantial rights.

## Conclusion

State v. Daws held that, although battered-woman-syndrome evidence may be considered by jurors when deciding whether a defendant honestly and reasonably believed deadly force was necessary, a trial court is not required to give a special instruction telling jurors that a battered woman may act at a lower reasonableness threshold; because the jury received correct self-defense instructions and heard BWS evidence, the conviction for voluntary manslaughter was affirmed.


State v. Daws, 662 N.E.2d 805 (1994)