The Science Has Evolved: Why It Is Time to Update Maryland’s Statute Permitting Expert Testimony on Battered Spouse Syndrome

Tyler Fultz

The federal government determined that the concept known as “Battered Spouse Syndrome” was outdated in 1996. In reaching this determination, field experts concluded that (1) the “Battered Spouse Syndrome” model was methodologically “imprecise” and “misleading” in analyzing intimate partner violence (“IPV”) survivors’ experiences and (2) better research already existed that could help IPV survivors facing criminal prosecution explain how their behaviors were reasonable in light of the abuse they experienced. However, Maryland evidence law has not caught up, continuing to use language that reflects a model debunked by field experts for decades. As such, Maryland should amend its statute permitting expert testimony on Battered Spouse Syndrome evidence in criminal defenses to replace its current “Battered Spouse Syndrome” language with “battering and its effects.”

The Supreme Court of Maryland recently adopted the Daubert standard for admitting expert testimony on scientific research, which emphasizes the need to evaluate the validity and reliability of scientific methods and conclusions when admitting scientific testimony. Prior to Daubert’s adoption in Rochkind v. Stevenson, Maryland courts analyzed scientific testimony on a test that hinged mainly on whether the information presented was “generally accepted.” However, the new Daubert-Rochkind test does not currently apply to expert testimony on Battered Spouse Syndrome because Maryland provides, by statute, for the admission of such testimony. Nonetheless, the adoption of the new standard provides an occasion to reexamine the merits of the statute. This Comment will use the Daubert-Rochkind test to analyze the legitimacy of expert testimony on Battered Spouse Syndrome and a competing framework, battering and its effects.

This analysis shows that Battered Spouse Syndrome research has numerous methodological validity issues, demonstrating that the General Assembly should follow the Supreme Court of Maryland’s lead and update the statute to ensure that valid testimony is admitted. Further, even the former “general acceptance” test, which remains one of ten factors under Daubert-Rochkind, justifies the need for the General Assembly to update the statute in question. Battered Spouse Syndrome lacks acceptance in the psychological community as its own “syndrome,” and feminist scholars have long feared Battered Spouse Syndrome stigmatizes IPV survivors in front of juries by labeling IPV survivors as having a “syndrome.” As such, Battered Spouse Syndrome has, at best, muddied acceptance from within key scholarly communities.

Because Battered Spouse Syndrome fails a Daubert-Rochkind analysis, Maryland’s Battered Spouse Syndrome statute should now read as follows:

Definitions

(a)(1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated.

(2) “Battered Spouse Syndrome” [“Battering and its effects”] means the psychological condition of a victim of repeated physical and psychological abuse by a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, or former cohabitant which is also recognized in the medical and scientific community as the “Battered Woman’s Syndrome”.

(3) “Defendant” means an individual charged with:

(i) First degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, or attempt to commit any of these crimes; or

(ii) Assault in the first degree.

Evidence and expert testimony

(b) Notwithstanding evidence that the defendant was the first aggressor, used excessive force, or failed to retreat at the time of the alleged offense, when the defendant raises the issue that the defendant was, at the time of the alleged offense, suffering from the Battered Spouse Syndrome [battering and its effects] as a result of the past course of conduct of the individual who is the victim of the crime for which the defendant has been charged, the court may admit for the purpose of explaining the defendant’s motive or state of mind, or both, at the time of the commission of the alleged offense:

(1) Evidence of repeated physical and psychological abuse of the defendant perpetrated by an individual who is the victim of a crime for which the defendant has been charged; and

(2) Expert testimony on the Battered Spouse Syndrome [battering and its effects].