Page 7 - WCBA CLE 6-14-2022

5

D’s midwife testified to exam of D 3 different occasions “hard time
looking at D’s bruises; D reported abuse to therapist

-County Court found insufficient proof that abuse was significant factor in
the D’s crime

-County Court premised its analysis [“unknown what motive compelled D”]
on the presumption or antiquated notion that D could have avoided further
abuse at victim’s hand by leaving

-Expert testimony regarding impact of abuse on D and D’s testimony
regarding events prior to the shooting establ that abuse was
significant contributing factor to D’s criminal behavior

- County Court found “having regard for nature and circumstance of crime
and history, character and condition of D, sentence w/in normal statutory
range would NOT be unduly harsh”

- County Court engaged in weight of evidence analysis and on arcane belief
that D could have avoided by w/drawing from home thus reduced sentence
not warranted

- Antiquated impression of how DV survivors should behave

- County court failed to take into acct impact of physical, sexual
and/or psychological abuse on D as DV survivor

OTHER FACTS APP DIV CONSIDERED:

- D 32 YR OLD MOTHER OF 2 YOUNG CHILDREN

- NO KNOWN PRIOR ARRESTS OR CONVICTIONS

- NATURE OF CRIME - GUN FIRED WAS PRESSED AGAINST
VICTIM’S SKIN, LEAVING MUZZLE IMPRINT