Summarize the courts arguments to support its decision.
The first prong of the test asks, in essence, whether the defendant was the initial aggressor. While the primary physical aggressor inquiry is not necessarily the same as whether a person was the initial aggressor, the primary aggressor question can nonetheless undermine a claim of self-defense. This is especially true when an officer’s testimony goes beyond the primary aggressor inquiry and treads into the realm of who initiated the altercation. That is exactly what happened in this case.
A careful review of the record in this case establishes that Officer Simpson did opine on an ultimate issue in the domestic violence defense. When asked what conclusions he drew based on his observations, Simpson responded by saying that the observations of the evidence proved that Batie “started the disturbance, continued, and assaulted and injured,” her husband (emphasis added). Simpson did not simply testify as to the reason why he treated Batie as the primary physical aggressor and choose to proceed with charging her-testimony that would otherwise be admissible. Rather, Simpson asserted that his observations proved Batie started the affray. This is exactly the type of improper testimony that must be omitted from trial, and we find that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing it.
Notwithstanding our determination that the trial court abused its discretion, we must nevertheless overrule the assignment of error because the testimony amounted to harmless error. Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect the substantial rights of the defendant shall be disregarded. The term “substantial rights” has been interpreted to require that the error be prejudicial-that is that it must have affected the outcome of the trial court proceedings.