Kelly got into a fistfight
with her drunk husband in the street. A crowd separated them. A few
minutes later, they got into another fight, and Kelly stabbed her husband
to death with a pair of scissors.
Kelly claimed that she had
been attacked both times by her husband, and that he had been beating her
for years.
The prosecution had
witnesses who said that Kelly instigated both incidences.
Kelly was arrested and charged
with murder.
Kelly claimed that the
murder was done in self-defense.
At Trial, Kelly attempted to
introduce expert witness testimony about "battered women's
syndrome." The Judge found the evidence was inadmissible.
Kelly argued that evidence
of her abuse was crucial to establishing self-defense.
The Judge found that self-defense claims have an objective standard. It wasn't
whether Kelly believed her life was threatened, but whether a reasonable
person in Kelly's position would
believe their life was threatened.
Therefore evidence as to
Kelly's subjective state of mind was inadmissible.
The Trial Court convicted
Kelly of reckless manslaughter.
She appealed.
The New Jersey Supreme Court
overturned the conviction.
The New Jersey Supreme Court
found that under New Jersey law (N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4(a)), the use of force is justifiable "when
the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately
necessary..."
The Court found that self-defense is a subjective standard under New Jersey law.
The Court found that
Kelly's state-of-mind was a critical issue to determining Kelly's
credibility that expert witness testimony was therefore relevant (and
admissible) to establishing that Kelly honesty.
Alternately, one could say
that under an objective standard, the question is whether a reasonable
person in Kelly's position would
have believed their life was in danger, and the only way for a jury to
understand what a person in Kelly's position would have reasonably
believed was with expert testimony about battered women's syndrome.
Evidence of prior of battery
make it more likely that Kelly's claim that her life was in danger was reasonable.
