(a)In a criminal action, expert testimony is admissible by either the prosecution or the defense regarding intimate partner battering and its effects, including the nature and effect of physical, emotional, or mental abuse on the beliefs, perceptions, or behavior of victims of domestic violence, except when offered against a criminal defendant to prove the occurrence of the act or acts of abuse which form the basis of the criminal charge.
(b)The foundation shall be sufficient for admission of this expert testimony if the proponent of the evidence establishes its relevancy and the proper qualifications of the expert witness. Expert opinion testimony on intimate partner battering and its effects shall not be considered a new scientific technique whose reliability is
unproven.
(c)For purposes of this section, “abuse” is defined in Section 6203 of the Family Code, and “domestic violence” is defined in Section 6211 of the Family Code and may include acts defined in Section 242, subdivision (e) of Section 243, Section 261, 273.5, 273.6, 422, or 653m of, or former Section 262 of, the Penal Code.
(d)This section is intended as a rule of evidence only and no substantive change affecting the Penal Code is intended.
(e)This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Expert Witness Testimony on Intimate Partner Battering and Its Effects Section of the Evidence Code.
(f)The changes in this section that become effective on January 1, 2005, are not intended to impact any existing decisional law regarding this section,
and that decisional law should apply equally to this section as it refers to “intimate partner battering and its effects” in place of “battered women’s syndrome.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
76
cases (
36 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case:
People v. Humphrey, 921 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1996).
People v. Humphrey, 921 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1996).
· cites it 22× “(Evid. Code, § 1107.) We must determine the purposes for which a jury may consider this evidence when offered to support a claim of self-defense to a murder charge.”
People v. Battle, 198 Cal. App. 4th 50 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “) Evidence Code section 1107 permits admission of expert testimony regarding intimate partner battering, but it does not modify the imminence requirement.”
People v. Wright, 242 Cal. App. 4th 1461 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “)11 11 In the related context of battered women’s syndrome evidence (renamed “intimate partner battering” to make it gender neutral (Evid. Code, § 1107, subd. (f)), case law recognizes that supporting instructions on self defense are appropriate when the evidence shows a woman…”
People v. Riggs, 187 P.3d 363 (Cal. 2008).
“(Evid. Code, § 1107 [“[i]n a criminal action, expert testimony is admissible by either the prosecution or the defense regarding intimate partner battering and its effects, including the nature and effect of physical, emotional, or mental abuse on the beliefs, perceptions, or…”
In re Walker, 147 Cal. App. 4th 533 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “Evidence Code section 1107 For many years criminal defendants accused of committing violent crimes against their batterers were either denied the ability to use, or did not fully perceive the persuasive force of, expert testimony to assist the trier of fact in understanding the…”
People v. Mateo, 243 Cal. App. 4th 1063 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
“’ (Evid. Code, § 1107, subd. (a); see CALJIC No.”
People v. Sotelo-Urena, 4 Cal. App. 5th 732 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
“1076), the preferred terminology is now “ ‘intimate partner battering’ ” (Evid. Code, § 1107, subd. (f); People v. Wright (2015) 242 Cal.”
People v. Jefferson, 119 Cal. App. 4th 508 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “’ Evidence Code section 1107 states ‘a rule of evidence only’ and makes ‘no substantive change.”
People v. Brady, 22 Cal. App. 5th 1008 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018).
“Accordingly, we refer to the victim in this case by his first name and last initial, and thereafter by first name only.”
People v. Brackins, 37 Cal. App. 5th 56 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019).
“" ( Evid. Code, § 1107, subd. (a).) Defendant's argument is premised on his claim that the use of Ferry's testimony to evaluate Amezcua's "believability" amounted to the use of his testimony to "prove the occurrence" of the abuse.”
State Of Washington v. Kevin Ray Case, 466 P.3d 799 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
“California’s rules of evidence expressly allow for expert testimony on victim behaviors as a general matter, Cal. Evid. Code, § 1107(a), and California courts have held that such testimony 16 No.”
People v. Callahan, 124 Cal. App. 4th 198 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
“6 Evidence Code section 1107 provides in pertinent part: “(a) In a criminal action, expert testimony is admissible by either the prosecution or the defense regarding battered women’s syndrome, including the nature and effect of physical, emotional, or mental abuse on the…”
Cal. Evidence Code § 1107(a): 4 cases
State Of Washington v. Kevin Ray Case, 466 P.3d 799 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
“California’s rules of evidence expressly allow for expert testimony on victim behaviors as a general matter, Cal. Evid. Code, § 1107(a), and California courts have held that such testimony 16 No.”
Cal. Evidence Code § 1107(b): 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.