## Facts

- Andrew G. Janes, age 17, lived with his mother and stepfather, Walter Jaloveckas, who allegedly subjected Janes and family members to years of escalating physical and emotional abuse and threats.
- On August 29, 1988, Jaloveckas argued intensely with Janes’s mother; Jaloveckas remained angry the next morning.
- Before school, Janes showed a friend a loaded shotgun and said he planned to kill Jaloveckas.
- Janes left school early, went home, and accessed Jaloveckas’s locked guns, alcohol, and marijuana.
- On August 30, 1988, as Jaloveckas entered the home, Janes shot and killed him with a shotgun.
- Janes then triggered the home alarm to summon responders and later fired at arriving police and at objects in the home; an officer and a bystander sustained minor injuries.
- Janes was charged with first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree assault; the jury convicted him of second-degree murder (lesser included) and both assault counts.
- At sentencing, the trial court found a pattern of ongoing abuse and imposed an exceptional 10-year sentence for the murder conviction.
- At trial, Janes sought a self-defense instruction and expert testimony that he fit battered child syndrome; the court refused the instruction and excluded the syndrome testimony for self-defense purposes (while allowing limited diminished-capacity testimony).

## Issues

1. Whether Janes was entitled to a self-defense instruction based on “some evidence” supporting the defense when viewed most favorably to him.
2. Whether expert testimony on battered child syndrome was admissible and relevant to Janes’s subjective perception of danger and the objective reasonableness of his belief in the need for deadly force.
3. Whether the charging information for second-degree assault was constitutionally sufficient despite not expressly alleging intent.

## Decision

- The court reversed Janes’s convictions for second-degree murder and second-degree assault and remanded for a new trial.
- It held the trial court erred by excluding battered child syndrome expert testimony offered to support self-defense.
- It held the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense, because the record contained “some evidence” that could support the defense when considered in the light most favorable to Janes.
- The court indicated Janes should be permitted on retrial to present battered child syndrome expert testimony and, if the evidence remains substantially similar, receive a self-defense instruction.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction when there is “some evidence” supporting the theory; credibility and weight are for the jury.
- Self-defense reasonableness is assessed from the standpoint of a reasonably prudent person in the defendant’s situation, including relevant circumstances known to the defendant.
- Expert testimony on battered child syndrome may be admissible to assist the jury in understanding how prolonged abuse affects a child’s perception of danger and assessment of the necessity of force, bearing on both subjective belief and objective reasonableness.
- A trial court may not foreclose self-defense solely by treating “imminence” as limited to an overt, contemporaneous assault if expert evidence could assist the jury in evaluating perceived imminent danger in the context of long-term abuse.
- Charging documents must include essential elements of the offense, either expressly or by necessary implication, to satisfy due process.

## Conclusion

The appellate court ordered a new trial because the exclusion of battered child syndrome expert evidence and the denial of a self-defense instruction improperly prevented the jury from evaluating whether Janes reasonably perceived imminent danger and acted in self-defense in light of the alleged history of abuse.


State v. Janes, 822 P.2d 1238 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992)