## Facts

- May Aphaylath, a Laotian refugee living in the United States for about two years, was charged with intentionally murdering his Laotian wife of one month.
- The defense asserted the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (EED) to mitigate intentional murder to manslaughter, claiming refugee-related stress caused significant mental trauma that contributed to a loss of control.
- The immediate precipitating circumstance involved defendant’s jealousy related to his wife’s apparent preference for an ex-boyfriend.
- The defense also contended that, in Laotian culture, the wife’s affectionate conduct toward another man and phone calls from an unattached man brought shame on defendant and his family, helping trigger the claimed emotional disturbance.
- Defendant introduced some cultural-context evidence through cross-examination, and through his own testimony, but was limited by illiteracy in both his native language and English.
- Defendant offered two expert witnesses to testify about stress and disorientation commonly experienced by Laotian refugees attempting to assimilate into American culture.
- The trial court excluded the expert testimony because the experts could not testify to matters specifically relating to the defendant.
- Defendant was convicted; the Appellate Division affirmed; the Court of Appeals granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by excluding expert testimony about refugee stress and cultural context offered to support an EED defense solely because the experts lacked personal knowledge of, or specific information about, the defendant.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division order and remitted the case for a new trial.
- The court held that defendant’s ability to present an EED defense was impermissibly curtailed by exclusion of the two experts’ testimony concerning refugee stress and disorientation.
- The court concluded the record showed the testimony was excluded on the sole ground that the experts could not testify about matters specifically relating to the defendant, which was an improper basis for exclusion in this context.

## Legal Principles

- Expert testimony explaining general cultural norms and common psychological stressors associated with a defendant’s community or refugee experience may be relevant to an EED defense.
- An expert offering such cultural or group-experience testimony is not required, as a categorical prerequisite to admissibility, to have personal knowledge of, or a personal relationship with, the defendant.
- Excluding otherwise relevant expert evidence on the sole basis that it is not individually tailored to the defendant may improperly restrict the defense and require a new trial.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the trial court improperly excluded expert testimony about Laotian refugee stress and related cultural context that could assist the jury’s evaluation of an extreme emotional disturbance defense, even though the experts did not have personal knowledge of the defendant.


People v. Aphaylath, 68 N.Y.2d 945 (N.Y. 1986)