## Facts

- Betsy Marie Hanks and Matthew Albert were in a long-term relationship (about eight years) and had four children.
- Trial evidence described the relationship as troubled; multiple witnesses characterized Albert as controlling, including over finances and Hanks’s work and social activities.
- While Albert was away for construction work in summer 2009, Hanks developed a close relationship with L.G.; the State introduced letters and testimony suggesting an affair.
- On October 19, 2009, Albert found Hanks with L.G. and allegedly attempted to hit L.G. with a vehicle.
- On October 20, 2009, Hanks shot Albert at close range in their home.
- After the shooting, Hanks hid the gun at her father’s house, returned when she realized Albert was still alive, and called for help; Albert later died at the hospital.
- In police interviews, Hanks gave inconsistent explanations, including that she shot Albert to “make things right,” that the gun discharged accidentally, that she shot him at his request, and that she wanted her children to have “a better father.”
- Before trial, Hanks offered expert testimony on battered woman syndrome (BWS) to support her theory of her mental state and to explain credibility issues; the district court excluded the expert testimony for lack of adequate foundation.
- A jury found Hanks guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder for the same killing; the district court entered convictions on both counts.

## Issues

1. Whether excluding Hanks’s proposed BWS expert testimony (and related relationship evidence) was an evidentiary error or violated her constitutional right to present a defense.
2. Whether the district court erred by entering convictions for both first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder based on a single homicidal act.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the exclusion of the BWS expert testimony, concluding the foundational showing was insufficient to make the testimony relevant and admissible.
- The court held that the exclusion did not violate the constitutional right to present a defense because it applied ordinary evidentiary requirements and was not arbitrary or disproportionate.
- The court held the district court erred by entering convictions for both first- and second-degree murder for the single killing.
- The first-degree premeditated murder conviction was affirmed.
- The second-degree intentional murder conviction was reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate.

## Legal Principles

- Expert testimony on battered woman syndrome is admissible only if foundational evidence shows the defendant’s relationship fits the BWS model, including a pattern of battering and the associated cycle of abuse; a controlling or troubled relationship, without more, is insufficient.
- Excluding defense evidence for lack of relevance or inadequate expert foundation generally does not violate the right to present a defense when the limitation serves legitimate evidentiary purposes and the excluded evidence is not materially exculpatory.
- When a defendant is found guilty of both a greater homicide offense and a lesser-included homicide offense for one death, judgment may be entered only on the most serious offense; the lesser conviction must be vacated.

## Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s exclusion of BWS expert testimony for lack of an adequate foundation and rejected the claim that the exclusion denied Hanks a fair opportunity to present her defense, but it required vacatur of the lesser-included second-degree murder conviction because only one homicide conviction may stand for a single killing.


State v. Hanks, 817 N.W.2d 663 (Minn. 2012)