This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D, a Laotian refugee, was indicted and tried for the intentional murder of his Laotian wife of one month. D attempted to establish the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance to mitigate the homicide. D claimed that the stresses resulting from his status of a refugee caused a significant mental trauma, affecting his mind for a substantial period of time, simmering in the unknowing subconscious and then inexplicably coming to the fore. The cause for D's loss of control was his jealousy over his wife's preference for an ex-boyfriend. D argued that under Laotian culture the conduct of the victim wife in displaying affection for another man and receiving phone calls from an unattached man brought shame on d and his family sufficient to trigger D's loss of control. D had only been in the US for two years. D was able to present some evidence of Laotian culture through the cross-examination of two prosecution witnesses and through the testimony of D himself. D was hampered by his illiteracy in both his native tongue and English. The trial court excluded the testimony of two expert witnesses concerning the stress and disorientation encountered by Laotian refugees in attempting to assimilate into the American culture. The court stated: 'neither one * * * was going to be able to testify as to anything specifically relating to this defendant.'

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.