## Facts

- Peggy Stewart was charged with first-degree murder for shooting and killing her husband, Mike Stewart, in Butler County, Kansas.
- The evidence described a long history of domestic abuse, threats, and violence by the decedent toward Stewart.
- On June 1, 1986, Stewart obtained a loaded .357 magnum from another room and shot her husband while he slept.
- Stewart asserted self-defense and introduced expert testimony on battered woman syndrome to explain her perception of danger and response to the abuse.
- The trial court instructed the jury on self-defense; the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
- The State pursued a direct appeal on a question reserved under K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(3), seeking guidance on whether self-defense instructions are proper in a battered spouse case when the victim is asleep and no immediate confrontation is occurring.

## Issues

1. Whether K.S.A. 21-3211 permits a self-defense instruction for a battered spouse who kills the abuser when there is no contemporaneous imminent threat or overt act by the abuser.
2. Whether battered woman syndrome evidence can substitute for, or relax, the statutory and common-law requirement that the defensive use of deadly force respond to imminent unlawful force.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court answered the reserved question in the negative and sustained the State’s appeal on the legal issue.
- The court held the self-defense instruction was improper because there was no evidence of an imminent threat or confrontational circumstance involving an overt act at the time of the killing.
- The court reaffirmed that battered woman syndrome evidence may be admissible and relevant to reasonableness, but it does not create an independent justification for homicide or eliminate the imminence requirement.
- The not-guilty verdict remained undisturbed because the appeal on a question reserved did not permit reversal of an acquittal.

## Legal Principles

- Self-defense under Kansas law is grounded in necessity, requiring an imminent threat of unlawful force (real or apparent) at the time deadly force is used.
- The self-defense inquiry is two-pronged: (1) whether the defendant sincerely and honestly believed deadly force was necessary (subjective), and (2) whether that belief was reasonable for a person in the defendant’s circumstances (objective).
- When self-defense is asserted, evidence of the victim’s long-term cruelty and violence toward the defendant is admissible.
- In battered spouse cases, expert testimony on battered woman syndrome is relevant to the reasonableness analysis, but the syndrome itself is not a standalone defense to murder.
- A self-defense instruction requires some showing of an imminent threat or a confrontational circumstance involving an overt act by an aggressor; long-term abuse does not create an exception.
- When a battered spouse kills an abuser who is asleep and the defendant is in no imminent danger, the killing is not reasonably necessary for self-defense, and a self-defense instruction should not be given.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court held that, even where there is evidence of long-term domestic abuse and admissible battered woman syndrome testimony, a self-defense instruction requires proof of an imminent threat or contemporaneous overt act; killing a sleeping abuser without such immediacy does not satisfy Kansas self-defense law.


State v. Stewart, 243 Kan. 639, 763 P.2d 572 (Kan. 1988)