Summary
The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Sasha McCalop’s convictions for malice murder arising from the stabbing death of her boyfriend, Michael Martin. The court rejected challenges to rebuttal expert testimony concerning battered person syndrome, the expert’s qualifications, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and the admission of bad-character evidence. The court also held that one evidentiary claim was unpreserved and did not satisfy the plain-error standard.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court improperly allowed the State's expert to testify about McCalop's behavior and alleged malingering without having personally interviewed or evaluated her.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by qualifying the State's expert despite his lack of prior testimony in Georgia and lack of familiarity with Georgia law concerning battered person syndrome.
- Whether the trial court plainly erred by allowing testimony that battered person syndrome lacked scientific support and that courts were wrong to instruct juries on it.
- Whether the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct by arguing that battered person syndrome was not a recognized diagnosis or defense.
- Whether the trial court erred by finding that a defense witness opened the door to evidence of McCalop's alleged prior aggressive acts.
Holdings
- The trial court did not err in allowing Dr. Hamel to testify that McCalop was misleading police or malingering and that the relationship was mutually abusive and dysfunctional. An expert may base an opinion on facts the expert did not personally perceive, and the testimony did not improperly opine on McCalop's mental state at the time of the stabbing or on the ultimate legal issue of justification.
- The trial court did not abuse its broad discretion by qualifying Dr. Hamel as an expert in domestic violence. Prior testimony in Georgia and familiarity with Georgia law were not prerequisites to expert qualification.
- McCalop failed to establish reversible plain error. Her challenge to testimony that courts were wrong to give battered-person-syndrome instructions was affirmatively waived because the defense invited the testimony. Her challenge to testimony that battered person syndrome lacked scientific support failed because she did not show that the testimony affected her substantial rights or likely changed the verdict.
- The claim that the prosecutor improperly argued that battered person syndrome was not a recognized diagnosis or defense was waived and was not reviewable.
- Even assuming the trial court erred in permitting the State to ask whether the defense witness knew of eight alleged prior aggressive acts, any error was harmless because it was highly probable that the evidence did not contribute to the verdict.
Key quotations
“No expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of an accused in a criminal proceeding shall state an opinion or inference as to whether the accused did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto.” (17)
“To establish plain error, McCalop “must point to an error that was not affirmatively waived, and that error must have been clear and not open to reasonable dispute, must have affected [her] substantial rights, and must have seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”” (24)
“Given the manner in which the cross-examination was conducted, the nature of the alleged incidents, including that some the alleged incidents were cumulative, the failure of the State to mention the alleged incidents in closing argument, and the strong evidence of guilt, including the 911 call, that McCalop was found hiding in a nearby building, and her conflicting version of events, we conclude that any error was harmless.” (33-34)
Factual background
McCalop was convicted of fatally stabbing her boyfriend, Michael Martin, during a tumultuous relationship marked by reported domestic-violence incidents. McCalop claimed that Martin attacked and choked her and that she used a knife defensively to escape. At trial, the defense presented expert testimony concerning post-traumatic stress disorder and battered person syndrome, while the State presented rebuttal testimony from Dr. John Hamel concerning the relationship, McCalop's police statements, and the scientific status of battered person syndrome. The State's evidence included Martin's 911 call, evidence that McCalop fled and hid after the stabbing, and inconsistencies in her accounts.
Procedural history
A DeKalb County grand jury indicted McCalop for malice murder, felony murder, and two counts of aggravated assault. After a March 2019 jury trial, she was convicted on all counts and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for malice murder; the remaining counts merged or were vacated by operation of law. The trial court denied her amended motion for new trial on August 4, 2022, and the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed.