Brown

At defendant’s trial on charges relating to domestic violence, the prosecution offered testimony from an expert witness to explain that domestic violence 1 victims often later deny or minimize the assailant’s conduct. Defendant objected. He contended such testimony did not fall within the scope of Evidence Code section 1107, 2 which authorizes expert testimony on “battered women’s syndrome.” He argued the prosecution had failed to show that the victim here was a battered woman because it offered no proof that defendant had abused her on more than one occasion. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence. Defendant was convicted, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. We granted defendant’s petition for review.

Two Court of Appeal decisions have addressed the issue whether expert testimony about the behavior of domestic violence victims is admissible when only one incident of abuse has occurred: People v. Gomez (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 405 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 101 ] (Gomez) held it inadmissible; People v. Williams (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1118 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ] (Williams) held it admissible. We conclude that in this case the evidence was…

We granted review in this case to resolve a conflict in the Courts of Appeal concerning the admissibility of battered women’s syndrome (BWS) testimony pursuant to Evidence Code section 1107 1 in the absence of evidence of a prior incident of domestic violence. *909 (Compare People v. Williams (2000) 78 Cal.App,4th 1118 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ], with People v. Gomez (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 405 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 101 ].) Rather than confront this question directly, the majority holds that the testimony in this case was, in any event, admissible under the more general provisions of section 801 concerning expert witnesses. In reaching this conclusion, the majority not only evades determining the proper application of section 1107 and our responsibility to “secure uniformity of decision” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 28(b)(1)), but disregards settled principles governing expert testimony. Because I find the evidence regarding BWS was not relevant to any disputed fact—and its admission prejudiced defendant—I dissent.

I

In determining the admissibility of any expert witness testimony, the threshold question is not simply whether the subject “is sufficiently beyond common experience that the…

At defendant's trial on charges relating to domestic violence, the prosecution offered testimony from an expert witness to explain that domestic violence [1] victims often later deny or minimize the assailant's conduct. Defendant objected. He contended such testimony did not fall within the scope of Evidence Code section 1107, [2] which authorizes expert testimony on "battered women's syndrome." He argued the prosecution had failed to show that the victim here was a battered woman because it offered no proof that defendant had abused her on more than one occasion. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence. Defendant was convicted, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. We granted defendant's petition for review.

Two Court of Appeal decisions have addressed the issue whether expert testimony about the behavior of domestic violence victims is admissible when only one incident of abuse has occurred: People v. Gomez (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 405 , 85 Cal. Rptr.2d 101 ( Gomez ) held it inadmissible; People v. Williams (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1118 , 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 ( Williams ) held it admissible. We conclude that in this case the evidence was…