Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): at trial, defense counsel explained to the court that the witness was to describe the “fight or flight” response to the jury. According to defense counsel, the psychologist was prepared to testify that in some highly stressful situations, an individual’s perception of danger may impel them to “fight,” when they perceive that they are being prevented from “flight.” Additionally, the psychologist was prepared to testify that given Filomeno’s situation, his perceptions of danger were both logical and reasonable. Sustaining the State’s objection to the proffered testimony, the trial court concluded that the psychologist’s testimony attempted to put forth the defense of diminished mental capacity, a defense not recognized in Florida. See Chestnut v. State, 538 So.2d 820, 825 (Fla.1989) (<HOLDING>). The admissibility of evidence is within the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that parol evidence is admissible to establish a condition precedent to the existence of a contract (B) holding that evidence of an impaired mental condition that does not rise to floridas definition of insanity is not admissible (C) holding that evidence of impaired mental functioning is inherently mitigating and that a defendant is not required to demonstrate a nexus between his mental capacity and the crime committed (D) holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action (E) holding that rule 35 does not permit sweeping examinations of a party who has not affirmatively put into issue his own mental or physical condition by asserting his mental or physical condition either in support of or in defense of a claim and that mere relevance to the case is insufficient
Output (English): holding that evidence of impaired mental functioning is inherently mitigating and that a defendant is not required to demonstrate a nexus between his mental capacity and the crime committed