However, Louisiana jurisprudence has long held that evidence of mental condition or defect is inadmissible in the absence of a defense plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. In addition, a mental defect or disorder short of insanity cannot serve to negate specific intent and reduce the degree of the crime. Thus, Judge Albert Tate has argued, the Louisiana rule may arbitrarily deprive the defendant of relevant testimony that might mitigate the degree of criminal guilt, thereby unconstitutionally relieving the State of its constitutional burden to prove guilt of every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This rule should not apply when expert psychiatric testimony is offered in the context of a self-defense plea by a battered woman who kills her batterer. This testimony is not offered for the purpose of establishing that the battered woman suffered from a defective mental state. Instead, its goal is to explain the reasonableness of the battered woman's perceptions of danger and imminence at the time of the killing. 59 footnotes.