Law Report

R v. Lavallee

The R. v. Lavallee case is an extensive case that explores in great detail the
complexity of battered woman syndrome and how vital it is for the jury and the judge’s to
know about this syndrome that played a leading role in the result of this case. An
interesting point raised in this case is the question of expert evidence and the reliability of
it. For this case, Dr. Shane was requested to create a psychiatric assessment of the
appellant (that being Lavallee). Dr. Shane was an “expert” in this field because due to the
technical nature of the case, an average person would have tremendous difficulty
formulating an opinion that would be valid. Needless to say, this means Dr. Shane’s
opinion hold’s a certain degree of weight within the court room, and this gives Dr. Shane
credibility. However, since Dr. Shane presents facts with virtually no physical evidence
to support them, and no weight should be put on any sort of factual truth that has no
evidence, his “expert opinion” is not as credible as it could be as he is basing his opinion
on what the appellant told him. Also, Dr. Shane later states that his position in the case
would have to be changed if what he was told by Lavallee was a lie. This means, Dr.
Shane formulated most of his “expert” evidence from facts that Lavallee had told him,
and not from a collective conclusion created from admissible evidence. In addition, Dr.
Shane’s latter withdrawal from the jury questions further if any weight should be put on
his psychiatric assessment. An expert opinion is usually required when the case deals
with an issue not most people are familiar with, and in this case it was the battered
woman’s syndrome. Dr. Shane said that the jury was perfectly capable of deciding the
issue with the admissible evidence and that expert evidence was therefore “unnecessary
and superfluous.” This is ironic because battered woman syndrome was the factor that
caused Lavallee to be ruled not guilty by the Supreme Court, and the Court saw Lavallee
as a victim of battered woman’s syndrome meaning when Lavallee shot her husband, it
was recognized as an act of self-defence and that could only be understood if one
understand what battered woman’s syndrome is and the effects that it carries. Implying
one would need to have an expert’s opinion or rather be presented with expert evidence
to understand why the Supreme Court had ruled in her favor. To conclude, I found that
quite ironic how the withdrawal of an expert from the jury was seen as “unnecessary”
when an expert opinion would be needed to understand the verdict of the case.

Battered woman syndrome (BWS) is a theory used to explain the behavior of women in
situations where they are abused often. In other words, it makes reference to any woman
that is unable to make independent actions because of the severity of their abuse from
their partners. The abuse follows a certain cycle which makes it different than other
forms of abuse because the relationship the two people share is greatly disturbed and
leaving and removing yourself from the situation is harder than it sounds. Therefore, for
women who feel they can not remove themselves from the situation are able to use
battered woman syndrome as a plea of self defense. Women with BWS firmly believe
there is no getting out and the concept of escape is complicated greatly because they
don’t think it’s possible to ever get out. That being said, women who commit acts of
violence in the past have used the BWS as a defense and it is used once again in this case.
What Lavallee is saying is she felt her safety was being threatened by Rust, but the
problem here is that Rust was leaving the room at the time he was shot, and that is largely
controversial in a self defense case as when the deceased left the room would be a less
hostile environment, and Lavallee would have little reason to believe her life was in
grave danger when he was leaving. If she had killed him during the time she was being
abused then her BWS self-defense argument would have been much stronger as she
would have had reason to conduct herself as such. Furthermore, her defense should
become invalid as she explicitly states she aimed above his head, insinuating that she did
not try to kill him and his death was a complete accident, in which case there is no self-
defense claim to be made.

In my opinion, I feel that Lavallee was excused for her deeds and it was un-just for her to
be allowed freedom. Since her initial police statement revealed she did not aim for his
head I believe that, that alone is enough for her to be denied freedom. Lavallee was
clearly not in any sort of immediate danger at the time she killed her husband, and Rust
walking out of the room would be a perfect time for Lavallee to kill him as he would not
see it coming. It seems as though Lavallee was a victim of abuse, but not necessarily
BWS. I believe in the symptoms of BWS and the implications that it has, but I do not
believe Lavallee suffered from it, rather using it to avoid going to jail.
Research Report: Battered Women's
Syndrome and R v. Lavallee
Prepared for: Mr. Nicolau
Prepared by: Hamon Yousifi
Due date: February 22, 2011
CLN-4U1