State of Oklahoma v. Donna Lee Bechtel

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with Murder in the First Degree.

¶1 DONNA LEE BECHTEL, Appellant, was retried1 by jury for the crime of [840 P.2d 4] Murder in the First Degree in violation of 21 O.S. 1981 § 701.7 [21-701.7], in Case No. CRF-84-4550 in the District Court of Oklahoma County before the Honorable Richard L. Freeman, District Judge. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and set punishment at life imprisonment, to which she was sentenced. From this Judgment and Sentence, she has perfected her appeal to this Court. Some of her points on appeal include: 1) that the trial court erred in refusing to submit certain instructions; 2) that the court erred in refusing to allow expert testimony on the "batter woman syndrome"; 3) that the court erred in refusing to admit specific instances of the victim's conduct into evidence; and 4) judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.

* * *

SELF-DEFENSE AND THE BATTERED WOMAN

¶12 Appellant defended this case on the theory of self-defense. In Oklahoma, self-defense is the subject of statutory and case law. The relevant portions of 21 O.S. 1981 § 733 [21-733] state:

Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in either of the following cases: ____

2. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, ____, when there is a reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; . . . .

This Court has held that the bare belief that one is about to suffer death or great personal injury will not, in itself, justify taking the life of his adversary. There must exist reasonable grounds for such belief at the time of the killing. (Emphasis added). Further, the right to take another's life in self-defense is not to be tested by the honesty or good faith of the defendant's belief in the necessity of the killing, but by the fact whether he had reasonable grounds for such belief. (Emphasis added). See Hood v. State, 106 P.2d 271 (Okl.Cr. 1940). Fear alone never justifies one person to take the life of another. Such fear must have been induced by some overt act, gesture or word spoken by the deceased at the time the homicide occurred which would form a reasonable ground for the belief that the accused is about to suffer death or great bodily harm. McKee v. State, 372 P.2d 243 (Okl.Cr. 1962); West v. State, 617 P.2d 1362, 1366 (Okl.Cr. 1980).

¶13 For the purposes of deciding this appeal, we analyze two of the requirements of self-defense: (1) reasonableness and (2) imminence. These two requirements, as applied to this case, can be understood only within the framework of the Battered Woman Syndrome.

* * *

¶17 We next address the trial court's ruling that expert testimony does not appear to be necessary or helpful to the jury since Appellant's testimony concerning numerous drunken assaults and threats, including the vicious assaults and threat to kill her on the night of the homicide, are, in the trial court's opinion, "easily within the common understanding of all the jurors and easily come[s] within the legal definition of self-defense. The jury may consider all the rest of the evidence offered and yet to be offered in conjunction with the Defendant's statement of the incident, and they can make the decision." We do not agree, especially in light of the two inquiries submitted by the jury during its deliberation (See footnote 14 and "Instructions on Burden of Proof in Self-Defense"). These inquiries demonstrate the lack of common understanding of the elements of self-defense, particularly where the defendant is a battered woman.

* * *

¶19 Appellant argues that expert testimony regarding the syndrome is admissible to help the jury understand the battered woman, and, why Appellant acted out of a reasonable belief that she was in imminent danger when considering the issue of self-defense. We agree.

* * *

¶36 In addition to the reasonableness standard, Oklahoma's law of self-defense also imposes the temporal requirement of imminence. The thinking is that it is [840 P.2d 12] unreasonable reasonable to be provoked to the point of killing well after the provocative or assertive conduct has occurred.

* * *

¶44 Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on the burden of proof in self-defense cases in accordance with OUJI-CR 745, which reads as follows:

IT IS THE BURDEN OF THE STATE TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING IN SELF-DEFENSE. IF YOU FIND THAT THE STATE HAS FAILED TO SUSTAIN THAT BURDEN, THEN THE DEFENDANT MUST BE FOUND NOT GUILTY.

We agree. See Perez v. State, 798 P.2d 639 (Okl.Cr. 1990) where this Court held:

This objective standard of review replaces our earlier subjective appellate review. This new standard is not only consistent with our established rule that the State has the burden of proof to show that the defendant did not act in self defense, once the defense has been raised, but will also ensure that the jury does not perceive otherwise.

Accordingly, in the retrial of this case, OUJI-CR 745 must be given in conjunction with the other appropriate self-defense instructions.

¶45 OUJI-CR 746, as modified, (Instruction No. 14)17 was given to the jury in this case. Appellant objected to the giving of the modified instruction and argued that it was not applicable to this case, where there was no evidence that Appellant was the aggressor or provoked the altercation or voluntarily entered into mutual combat. The State argued that you have to give the entire self-defense series of instructions and that the instruction in question was applicable since Appellant testified that it was "necessary" for her to shoot the victim. The trial judge reasoned that since Appellant could not be hurt by the inclusion but, on the contrary, be benefitted by it, he would leave it in. For obvious and apparent reason, we agree with Appellant. Additionally, we believe that the instruction in question served to confuse the jury who submitted the following inquiry:

"Self-defense is permitted a person solely because of necessity.
(1) Does this mean or imply when no other options are available; or from

(2) Defendant's viewpoint & circumstances."

¶46 For the foregoing reasons, this case is REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial, consistent with this opinion.