## Facts

- Rhonda Kay Stewart shot and killed her husband while visiting him in a hospital intensive care unit after he had recently been removed from a ventilator.
- Stewart and the victim had been married for about 38 years.
- The defense proffered evidence that the victim had repeatedly abused Stewart physically and psychologically throughout the marriage.
- Stewart did not claim traditional self-defense; she sought to use the abuse history to challenge whether the State proved premeditation, malice, and intent required for first-degree murder.
- The defense sought (1) lay testimony from witnesses about long-term domestic abuse and (2) expert testimony from Dr. David Clayman regarding battered woman’s/battered spouse syndrome and how abuse could affect Stewart’s mental state relevant to premeditation and intent.
- The trial court excluded the lay abuse testimony as irrelevant or too remote and excluded the expert testimony because the expert did not diagnose Stewart to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty.”
- A jury convicted Stewart of first-degree murder, and the court imposed a life sentence with mercy.
- Stewart appealed, arguing the exclusions prevented the jury from considering evidence bearing on the elements of first-degree murder.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that the victim abused the defendant is relevant and admissible in a homicide case to negate or tend to negate premeditation, malice, or intent, even when the defendant does not assert self-defense.
2. Whether expert testimony regarding battered woman’s/battered spouse syndrome is admissible to explain psychological effects of abuse and support a claim that the defendant lacked the mental state for first-degree murder without a diagnosis stated to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty.”
3. Whether excluding the lay and expert abuse-related evidence as irrelevant, remote, or insufficiently certain denied the defendant a fair trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the first-degree murder conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the trial court erred by excluding lay testimony describing the history of abuse because it was relevant to whether Stewart acted with premeditation, malice, or intent.
- The court held the trial court erred by excluding expert testimony on battered woman’s syndrome; the testimony was admissible if it would assist the jury in understanding how abuse could affect the defendant’s reasoning and mental state tied to the charged elements.
- The court concluded the remoteness and credibility of abuse evidence were generally for the jury to weigh, not grounds for categorical exclusion by the court.
- The court determined the exclusions prevented Stewart from presenting evidence supporting a lesser offense (e.g., second-degree murder or manslaughter) and therefore denied her a fair trial.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence that a victim abused or threatened the defendant may be relevant to negate or tend to negate elements of homicide offenses, including malice or intent, even when the defendant’s conduct is not reasonably viewed as self-defense.
- In battered woman’s syndrome cases, the jury may consider abuse evidence when deciding whether essential elements such as premeditation, malice, or intent have been proven.
- Questions of remoteness and credibility of abuse evidence are generally for the jury’s assessment of weight, rather than categorical exclusion by the court.
- Expert testimony may be admitted to explain the psychological basis of battered woman’s syndrome and to opine that a defendant fits the syndrome profile when it would assist the jury on issues connected to mens rea.
- A trial court may not impose an unduly rigid admissibility threshold (such as requiring a diagnosis to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty”) that bars otherwise helpful expert testimony linking abuse dynamics to the defendant’s mental state relevant to charged elements.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the jury was entitled to hear lay and expert evidence of long-term abuse and battered woman’s syndrome to evaluate whether the State proved premeditation, malice, and intent for first-degree murder, and the trial court’s exclusions deprived the defendant of a fair opportunity to seek conviction of a lesser offense.


State v. Stewart, 228 W. Va. 406, 719 S.E.2d 876 (W. Va. 2011)