People v. Angela VV
Issue: Whether the Third Department’s DVSJA denial was supported by the record.
Facts: In 2018, Angela was convicted of manslaughter for killing her abusive husband. In 2022, she was denied DVSJA resentencing, a decision which the Third Department affirmed. Angela appealed, arguing the decision was not supported by the record.
Held: The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court held that factual findings made by the Appellate Division were supported by the record and otherwise beyond the scope of its review. Here, the Third Department had conducted an independent review of the record and agreed with County Court that appellant failed to meet her burden under all three of the DVSJA prongs. The Third Department found that appellant’s testimony was incredible and self-serving. The Appellate Division also agreed with County Court that the defense expert’s report was unreliable, because it was based “solely upon [appellant’s] self-reporting”; the expert’s conclusion that appellant did not clearly remember the details of the homicide was belied by her detailed post-arrest statements; and the report omitted an opinion on how appellant’s trauma impacted her commission of the offense. The Court of Appeals determined that these findings were supported by the record. In affirming the determination by the AD that the sentence was not unduly harsh, the COA pointed to the “chilling account” of the murder, the client’s failure to accept responsibility, and her disciplinary history.
CAL observes: This was a disappointing case, because the COA’s analysis is reminiscent of the same traps we see many lower courts falling into. For example, the fact that the expert relied on Angela’s self-report is common, and it makes sense: DV often happens in private, so sometimes the only person available to talk about it is the client. The fact that the expert relied on the client’s selfreport doesn’t mean he believed every word she said without scrutiny, but rather is a refection of the fact that the science of psychological evaluation is contingent on speaking to the subject themselves. The fact that Angela’s memory changed over time is completely consistent with the effects of DV trauma. The report didn’t explicitly mention the effect of Angela’s abuse on her decision to kill her abuser not because the abuse wasn’t a significant contributing factor to the offense, but because the report was written pre-plea, and before the DVSJA was ever passed. The unduly harsh analysis is similarly disappointing: the DVSJA was designed for people charged with serious offenses, and trauma survivors often struggle in prison, leading to a disciplinary history.
Having read the underlying filings in this cases I am struck by how little of Angela’s experience of abuse and its effects were borne out in the COA decision or argument. Similarly, this decision does not appear to recognize the paradigm shift ushered in by the DVSJA’s passage, or grapple with what the remedial purpose of the DVSJA says about how courts should view and credit criminalized DV survivors. The DVSJA was passed because no one was getting relief under Jenna’s Law. The Legislature amended the law to make it more broad, but if the courts are still viewing survivors through the same sexist and racist lens they always did, the new legislative language isn’t worth much.