Kristina Burns was accused of shooting and killing her mother, after which she took her car and went on a shopping spree. Several days later, soon after the body was discovered, Burns was arrested. She gave inconsistent statements, ranging from complete denial, to presence at the shooting. At trial, she claimed she shot her mother accidentally, while they were engaged in a heated argument. To explain her cool and calculated behavior and calm demeanor after the shooting, she sought to introduce the testimony of a clinical psychologist and a psychiatrist to the effect that she suffered from a histrionic personality disorder They explained her post-shooting conduct in terms of “hypomanic flight,” essentially a behavior defense mechanism that denies the reality of traumatic events.

Agreeing with the prosecutor, the court would not allow the experts to testify unless the defendant took the stand and gave an account of her post-shooting behavior. There was some concern that since the experts would be testifying to Burris's hearsay statements in the course of the clinical interviews, the jury might take it as substantive evidence in support of her version of the shooting, despite the court's limiting instructions. Based on that ruling, the defendant took the stand and testified that the shooting was accidental. But then she was confronted with, among other things, her prior inconsistent statements. The experts were then permitted to testify The defendant was convicted and sentenced to thirty years without parole eligibility.

On appeal Burrs contended that prohibiting her from presenting psychiatric testimony unless she testified violated her right to remain silent. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. It agreed with the defendants that the trial court improperly conditioned her right to present psychiatric evidence upon her testifying. Specifically the Court disagreed with the trial court's conclusion that an expert witness may refer to hearsay statements upon which he relied in forming his opinion unless independent evidence is first presented establishing the truth of the out-of-court declarations. Said the Court, such statements can be permitted when they are a necessary element in the formulation of the expert's opinion, and accompanied by appropriate limiting instructions to the jury.