People v. Romero
California Court of Appeal
13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1992)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Debra Romero (defendant) lived with her partner, Terrance Romero. Terrance was physically abusive and hit Debra anytime she did not bring him money to support his cocaine addiction. Terrance also threatened to kill Debra if she left him, and she required hospitalization after one particularly bad incident. Debra participated in four attempted robberies with Terrance. Then, in a July 1989 robbery, Debra approached one victim, James Stratton, who was in his vehicle at a stop light. Debra entered Stratton’s car from the passenger side, saying she had been beaten. Debra appeared hysterical and had a bruised and puffy face. At that point, Terrance threatened Stratton with a gun from the driver’s side of the vehicle, while Debra turned off the car’s ignition and directed Stratton to give his money to Terrance. Stratton managed to drive off. The state (plaintiff) charged Debra with five robbery-related offenses. At trial, Debra admitted her participation in the crimes but asserted the defense of duress, or that she only did what she did out of fear that Terrance would kill her. The jury convicted Debra. Debra filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to her trial lawyer’s failure to offer expert testimony on battered-woman syndrome (BWS) to corroborate her duress defense. Debra’s trial lawyer knew that Debra might suffer from BWS and had obtained the name of an expert but failed to follow through or provide any explanation for his decision not to seek an expert.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Vogel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
