Battered Spouse Syndrome
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Create an account to record your position, submit testimony, or contact your legislator.
Progress
Where this bill stands in the legislative process.
- Introduced
- Passed House
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Overview
This bill aims to clarify and expand the use of evidence related to ‘battered spouse syndrome’ in South Carolina criminal court. It defines key terms, strengthens the admissibility of evidence to demonstrate a defendant suffers from this syndrome, and establishes a rebuttable presumption of self-defense if a history of abuse and a recent threat of violence are documented. The goal is to recognize the psychological impact of domestic violence and its relevance to self-defense claims.
Key provisions
- Defines ‘battered spouse syndrome’ as a psychological condition resulting from repeated abuse.
- Establishes a rebuttable presumption of self-defense if a documented history of abuse and a recent threat of violence exist.
- Allows for expert testimony on battered spouse syndrome to explain a defendant’s motive or state of mind.
- Requires notice to the court before offering evidence of battered spouse syndrome.
- Broadens the definition of ‘violent assault’ to include specific criminal offenses.
- Permits lay testimony regarding the batterer’s actions to establish the foundation for evidence on battered spouse syndrome.
- Specifies that expert testimony on the syndrome must be based on commonly accepted scientific knowledge.
- Clarifies that evidence of battered spouse syndrome cannot be used to prove the occurrence of the abuse itself.
Who is affected
Bill text
Read the latest version inline or switch to a previous version.
Text extraction is in progress. View the official source.
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
3 on record
Primary sponsor
Cosponsors
Arguments
Reasons offered for and against this legislation.
Arguments in favor
No arguments in favor have been submitted.
Submit yoursArguments opposed
No arguments opposed have been submitted.
Submit yours