CONVICTION FOR BEATING WILL STAND HIGH COURT APPROVES BATTERED WOMEN'S SYNDROME TESTIMONY.

Byline: Karen Maeshiro Staff Writer

LANCASTER - The state Supreme Court has upheld a Littlerock man's domestic violence conviction, ruling that the trial judge did not err by allowing an expert to testify about battered women's syndrome.

Cornell Cooper Brown's girlfriend's testimony during the trial differed from what she initially told police, and the expert witness described the tendency of domestic violence victims to deny or minimize allegations of abuse.

Brown appealed, contending such testimony about the behavior of domestic violence victims was not admissible because the prosecution had failed to show that the victim was a battered woman and did not offer proof that the defendant had abused her on more than one occasion.

``We conclude that in this case the evidence was admissible ... because it would assist the trier of fact in evaluating the credibility of the victim's trial testimony and earlier statements to the police, by providing relevant information about the tendency of victims of domestic violence later to recant or minimize their description of that violence,'' the high court stated in a 6-1 ruling issued last week.

Brown, 41, was sentenced in 2001 to 10 years in prison after being convicted of making terrorist threats, false imprisonment by violence, and misdemeanor battery. The jury was unable to agree on a charge of assault with a deadly weapon, the ruling said.

Brown has prior convictions dating back to the early 1990s for drug charges, attempting to dissuade a witness, and battery on emergency personnel, state records show.

In 2002, he received 78 years of additional prison time for aggravated assault by ``gassing'' - throwing excrement - and battery on a nonprisoner, records show.

Brown was arrested in April 2001 after he and Kimberly Pipes fought at an apartment they shared with Pipes' four children and a woman who cared for the children when Pipes worked.

Pipes told sheriff's deputies that she tried to leave the apartment after an argument with Brown, but he put his arm around her neck and dragged her to the bedroom.

She said Brown then went to the living room and returned with a steak knife and a barbecue fork and told Pipes he would kill her if she left. The defendant also told her, ``I don't want you having my baby,'' and punched her in the stomach.

Pipes testified at the trial that Brown took hold of her arm, not her neck, and pulled her back to the bedroom, and that when she got up to leave he slapped her in the stomach. Pipes said that Brown did not threaten her with the knife and fork.

Jeri Darr, program manager of the Antelope Valley Domestic Violence Council, testified that domestic violence victims, after describing the violence to the police, often later repudiate the description.

About 80 percent to 85 percent of victims ``actually recant at some point in the process,'' and the tendency to recant or minimize accounts of violence applies to victims who have only one incident of abuse, Darr testified.

Writing for the majority, Justice Joyce Kennard said when the trial testimony of an alleged victim of domestic violence is inconsistent with what the victim had earlier told the police, the jurors may well assume that the victim is an untruthful or unreliable witness.

``And when the victim's trial testimony supports the defendant or minimizes the violence of his actions, the jurors may assume that if there really had been abusive behavior, the victim would not be testifying in the defendant's favor,'' the ruling said.

``Here, there was an adequate foundation for that expert testimony, because evidence presented at trial suggested the possibility that defendant and Kimberly Pipes were in a 'cycle of violence' of the type described by expert Jeri Darr,'' Kennard wrote. ``To assist the jury in evaluating this evidence, the trial court properly admitted the expert testimony by Darr.''

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Janice Brown said she found the evidence regarding battered women's syndrome not relevant to any disputed fact, and that its admission prejudiced the defendant.

``Here, the record contained no evidence Kimberly Pipes suffered from BWS (battered women's syndrome). Not only had there been no pattern of physical or psychological abuse in her relationship with defendant, she flatly denied he had ever hit her in the past. Nor were there any of the substantive characteristics - dependency, control, isolation - that mark BWS,'' Brown wrote.

``Thus, in the absence of evidence Pipes exhibited BWS, a substantial portion of Darr's testimony was irrelevant and should not have been admitted ...,'' Brown said.

Karen Maeshiro, [phone]

karen.maeshiro(at)dailynews.com