The Colorado Supreme Court concluded on Friday that a Boulder County judge incorrectly green-lit a psychologist’s expert testimony when the defendant had not laid the necessary groundwork for the evidence.

State law requires criminal defendants to provide notice and undergo a court-ordered examination if they want to introduce expert evidence of their mental condition at trial.

Prosecutors charged Juli Ann Culver with one count of assault on an at-risk person, alleging she hit a teenager with cerebral palsy. Shortly before her scheduled trial in October, the defense announced it would introduce testimony from Jane Cleveland, an expert in “child-to-parent violence” and “abuse of caretakers.”

Specifically, Cleveland would provide context about what it means for parents “when a threat from their child occurs (and) the escalation of the limbic system causes a shutdown in frontal lobe processing, which means decision making gets impaired for a brief period,” her report indicated. “It is during these moments that parents can unintentionally make mistakes and overcompensate with their own physical reaction.”

The prosecution objected, arguing Culver had not followed the procedure for introducing mental condition evidence. The defense countered that Cleveland would not be opining about Culver’s mental state. Instead, she would help jurors understand the behaviors inherent to caregiving.

“The Court finds that Dr. Cleveland is qualified,” wrote District Court Judge Dea M. Lindsey, “and that she may discuss generally what can happen physiologically to parents in these types of relationships without opining that Ms. Culver specifically experienced this reaction herself.”

The district attorney’s office immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, contending the only purpose of Cleveland’s testimony would be to suggest Culver “suffered from a mental condition, and implying that this condition prevented her from forming the culpable state of mind” to be guilty.

In an unsigned Feb. 6 order, the Supreme Court agreed with the prosecution and reversed Lindsey’s decision.

“We now conclude that the proposed testimony by Dr. Cleveland is mental condition testimony subject to the requirements” in state law, the court wrote. “Because the defendant failed to comply with those requirements, the defendant may not present the proposed expert mental condition testimony by Dr. Cleveland.”

The case is People v. Culver.