Lasure v. Commonwealth, 2012 Ky. LEXIS 164

Lasure shot and killed Tolliver in the Lexington Green parking lot on March 5, 2009, with multiple eyewitnesses describing the killing.
Lasure fled the scene in a vehicle and was pursued by police, eventually surrendering after hours of negotiation at Ridge Behavioral Systems.
Lasure’s romantic relationship with Devereaux and Tolliver’s involvement were central to the interpersonal context; evidence of abuse and mental state issues were developed.
Defendant’s mental state claim centered on an extreme emotional disturbance (EED) defense, supported by Dr. Shilling (PTSD and poly-substance abuse) and rebutted by Dr. Cooley.
The trial court ruled that Lasure must testify before Dr. Shilling could offer expert EED testimony, a ruling challenged as violating the Fifth Amendment; the court ultimately reversed the verdict, ordering a new trial.
Trial court error allegedly forced testimony and raised significant questions about admissibility of expert testimony on EED in light of out-of-court statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in conditioning expert EED testimony on defendant testifying	Lasure argues the ruling violated his Fifth Amendment rights	Commonwealth contends conditioning is permissible to limit reliance on defendant’s out-of-court statements	Yes; error violated Fifth Amendment; reversal of conviction

Talbott v. Commonwealth, 968 S.W.2d 76 (Ky.1998) (limits expert EED testimony to legally defined concepts and not mere repetition of statements)
Padgett v. Commonwealth, 312 S.W.3d 336 (Ky.2010) (no bootstrapping; defendant’s testimony needed to base expert opinion)
Wellman v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 696 (Ky.1985) (mental illness evidence relevant to subjective reasonableness of EED)
Sherman v. Commonwealth, 142 S.W.3d 7 (Ky.2004) (relevance of psychological traits to EED consideration)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless error analysis for constitutional rights)