Whoa. See what you think about this one.
The popular media might describe the case in a plethora of different ways. Maybe they'd call it a "gay rage" case. Maybe they'd be more accurate and call it a "PTSD" case. Maybe, in a perfect world, we would all concisely (and accurately) describe the opinion as revolving around the degree to which "expert testimony
explaining how [a defendant's] past history of trauma was likely to affect his mental state at the time
of the offense." (Or, to put it a slightly different way -- and in support of a different conclusion -- whether "a mental health expert may  give
testimony that the defendant did or did not form the mental state required for the crime
Either way, it's an interesting case. With interesting facts. And a split between the majority and the dissent.
See which of these two opinions you find more persuasive. The answer's by no means clear-cut. And in the meantime, there are some scintillating -- though depressing -- facts to keep you interested in the outcome.