According to the court, what is the difference between a (primary physical aggressor) and an (initial aggressor)?
Here, it cannot be said that allowing the testimony resulted in prejudice to the defendant. At trial, the state introduced numerous photographic exhibits detailing the extent of the husband’s injuries. Many of these exhibits detailed what appeared to be numerous, severe, scratch marks down the length of the husband’s face. The photos also depicted a large burn mark on his forearm- which corroborated the husband’s testimony that Batie attacked him with a hot iron. Other photos depicted what appeared to be bite marks on the husband’s upper arm, and pictures showing a bloody, swollen lip. Further, Simpson testified that when he arrived at the Batie household, the appellant did not have any visible marks on her that would indicate that her husband had been physical with her. In fact, the only evidence supporting Batie’s claim that she was acting in self-defense, was her own trial testimony. Therefore, even if the trial court had excluded Simpson’s improper testimony, it cannot be said that the exclusion would have had any effect on the outcome of the case.