## Facts

- Sixteen-year-old Brian Nemeth shot his mother, Suzanne Nemeth, with a compound bow, striking her multiple times; she died days later.
- Nemeth asserted a history of severe, recurring physical and psychological abuse by his mother, frequently linked to her heavy alcohol use; some injuries and scars were corroborated by other evidence.
- On the night of the shooting, Nemeth testified his mother threw a beer can at him, cutting his lip, then pounded on his locked bedroom door for hours while screaming threats; he believed he was in serious danger.
- After the door pounding stopped, Nemeth left his room, saw his mother lying on a couch, and shot her; he testified he remembered only the first shot and then “blacked out.”
- Toxicology indicated the mother’s blood-alcohol concentration was about 0.20.
- Nemeth called 911, admitted the shooting, and cooperated with police and medical responders.
- The defense sought to present expert psychological testimony on “battered child syndrome” to support self-defense and to justify a voluntary manslaughter instruction based on serious provocation; the expert was a psychologist and the proffer relied on accepted scientific literature.

## Issues

1. Whether expert testimony on the psychological effects described as “battered child syndrome” is admissible under Ohio Evid.R. 702 when offered to support a child defendant’s self-defense theory in a parricide case.
2. Whether such expert testimony is admissible to support a requested voluntary manslaughter instruction based on serious provocation.
3. Whether excluding the proffered battered child syndrome testimony was prejudicial error requiring a new trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the court of appeals and held that expert testimony on battered child syndrome is admissible when relevant and when it satisfies Ohio Evid.R. 702.
- The Court ruled that battered child syndrome is not an independent substantive defense, but can be admitted to assist the jury in evaluating recognized defenses and lesser-offense theories.
- The Court concluded the proffered testimony met Evid.R. 702 and was relevant to Nemeth’s asserted mental state, perception of danger, and provocation theory.
- The Court held the trial court erred in excluding the expert testimony and that the error warranted a new trial.
- The case was remanded for retrial with the expert evidence admissible subject to ordinary relevance and Evid.R. 702 limits.

## Legal Principles

- Expert testimony is admissible under Ohio Evid.R. 702 when it concerns matters beyond lay knowledge, the witness is qualified, and the opinion rests on reliable specialized information.
- Expert testimony on battered child syndrome may be admitted to explain psychological effects of prolonged abuse that bear on a defendant’s perception of imminent danger and related behavior (including failure to report or escape).
- Such testimony may assist the jury in assessing the “honest and reasonable belief” component of self-defense, particularly where the homicide does not occur during a stereotypical face-to-face confrontation.
- The same type of expert evidence may be relevant to whether serious provocation existed for voluntary manslaughter by explaining the cumulative impact of abuse on the defendant’s emotional state.
- Courts must distinguish between impermissible use of psychological profiling to prove abuse occurred and permissible use of expert evidence to explain the perceptions and responses of a defendant when abuse is supported by other evidence.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court required a new trial because excluding qualified expert testimony on battered child syndrome improperly prevented the jury from considering evidence relevant to self-defense and serious provocation under Evid.R. 702, even though the syndrome itself does not create a standalone defense.


State v. Nemeth, 82 Ohio St. 3d 202, 694 N.E.2d 1332 (Ohio 1998)