We acknowledge that three other jurisdictions faced with this question have declined to allow a self-defense jury instruction when a woman hires a third party to kill her abusive partner. SeePeople v. Yaklich , 833 P.2d 758, 763 (Colo. App. 1991) (holding that woman who hired third party to murder her abusive husband had not shown she was in imminent danger at time of killing); State v. Anderson , 785 S.W.2d 596, 600 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990) (holding that court did not err in excluding battered spouse syndrome testimony when woman hired third party to kill her husband because she did not make a prima facie showing of self-defense); State v. Martin , 666 S.W.2d 895, 899 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984) (holding that court did not err in concluding that defendant who hired third party to kill her husband had not made out elements of self-defense); State v. Leaphart , 673 S.W.2d 870, 873 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983) (holding that court did not err in concluding that woman who hired third party to kill her abusive husband was not entitled to self-defense instruction because she had not demonstrated that she was in imminent danger at the time of the killing).
1. Evidence that the actor was suffering from the battered spouse syndrome shall be admissible upon the issue of whether the actor lawfully acted in self-defense or defense of another. By doing so, the argument goes, the Assembly in 1987 meant to change the case law as was embodied in State v. Martin, 666 S.W.2d 895 (Mo.App. 1984). In Martin the wife hired a contract killer to do the deed for money received from insurance proceeds.
By her own characterization she is the foremost authority on that phenomenon." Buhrle, 627 P.2d at 1376 [Footnotes omitted.] Dr. Walker was the expert who testified for the defense in Ibn-Tamas, and Hawthorne. Her testimony was also offered in State v. Martin, 666 S.W.2d 895 (Mo.App. 1984), and People v. Powell, 102 Misc.2d 775, 424 N.Y.S.2d 626 (Co.Ct. 1980). In our holding here we are not saying that this type of expert testimony is not admissible; we are merely holding that the state of the art was not adequately demonstrated to the court, and because of inadequate foundation the proposed opinions would not aid the jury.
Ronald A. Martin died on December 5, 1980. His wife, appellant Helen A. Martin, was convicted of capital murder of her husband, the insured, by a jury in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Missouri on February 27, 1982. Martin was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for fifty years. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed Martin's conviction in State v. Martin, 666 S.W.2d 895 (Mo.Ct.App. 1984). The facts as set forth in Martin are egregious, showing a cold-blooded, calculated murder of the insured, engineered by his wife, Helen Martin.
1986); State v. Hundley, 236 Kan. 461, 693 P.2d 475 (1985); State v. Anaya, 438 A.2d 892 (Me. 1981); May v. State, 460 So.2d 778 (Miss. 1984); State v. Baker, 120 N.H. 773, 424 A.2d 171 (1980); State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178, 478 A.2d 364 (1984); State v. Gallegos, 104 N.M. 247, 719 P.2d 1268 (1986); People v. Emick, 103 A.D.2d 643, 481 N.Y.S.2d 552 (1984); People v. Torres, 128 Misc.2d 129, 488 N.Y.S.2d 358 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1985); State v. Leidholm, 334 N.W.2d 811 (N.D. 1983); State v. Thomas, 13 Ohio App.3d 211, 468 N.E.2d 763 (1983); State v. Kelly, 102 Wn.2d 188, 685 P.2d 564 (1984); State v. Allery, 101 Wn.2d 591, 682 P.2d 312 (1984); State v. Dozier, 163 W. Va. 192, 255 S.E.2d 552 (1979); State v. Felton, 110 Wis.2d 485, 329 N.W.2d 161 (1983). But see, Ibn-Tamas v. United States, 455 A.2d 893 (D.C. 1983); Mullis v. State, 248 Ga. 338, 282 S.E.2d 334 (1981); People v. White, 90 Ill. App.3d 1067, 46 Ill.Dec. 474, 414 N.E.2d 196 (1980); Fultz v. State, 439 N.E.2d 659 (Ind.Ct.App. 1982); State v. Martin, 666 S.W.2d 895 (Mo.Ct.App. 1984); People v. Powell, 102 Misc.2d 775, 424 N.Y.S.2d 626 (1980); State v. Thomas, 66 Ohio St.2d 518, 423 N.E.2d 137 (1981); Fielder v. State, 683 S.W.2d 565 (Tex.Ct.App. 1985), jdgmt rev'd by 756 S.W.2d 309 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988); Buhrle v. State, 627 P.2d 1374 (Wyo. 1981). In allowing the admission of battered woman syndrome evidence, we set some limits on the use of expert testimony on this subject.
Lastly, in the absence of evidence of immediate danger, Defendant's perception as affected by the abuse she had sustained in the past is irrelevant. See generallyState v. Martin , 666 S.W.2d 895, 900 (Mo. App. E.D. 1984). Defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because the record does not contain substantial evidence supporting self-defense.
We recognize that, at trial, Ms. Porter presented evidence that she had endured years of severe physical and psychological abuse at the hands of Mr. Porter, and that she was suffering from the battered spouse syndrome. The Missouri Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion in State v. Martin , 666 S.W.2d 895, 899 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984), prior to the passage of Missouri's battered spouse syndrome statute. The defendant sought to introduce expert testimony on the battered spouse syndrome to support her defense that she hired a third party to kill her husband as a means of self-defense, but it was excluded.
"[T]he mere possibility that an event may happen in the future does not create an immediate danger underlying the right to kill in self-defense." State v. Martin, 666 S.W.2d 895, 899 (Mo.App. E.D. 1984) (emphasis added). There was no evidence that Victim had a knife.
"[T]he mere possibility that an event may happen in the future does not create an immediate danger underlying the right to kill in self-defense." State v. Martin, 666 S.W.2d 895, 899 (Mo.App. E.D. 1984) (emphasis added). There was no evidence that Victim had a knife.
The Missouri court concluded that the woman did not prove she was in immediate danger at the time her husband was killed and, thus, failed to make a prima facie showing of self-defense. See also State v. Martin, 666 S.W.2d 895 (Mo.App. 1984) (no error in excluding evidence of battered spouse syndrome where wife hired hit man to kill her abusive husband but failed to show she was in immediate danger at the time he was killed); Mo. Rev. Stat. ยง 563.033 (Supp. 1988); State v. Leaphart, 673 S.W.2d 870 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983) (no error in trial court's failure to give a self-defense instruction where wife was not in immediate danger at time husband was killed by hired killers). See generally Brewer, 33 St. Louis L.J., supra.