Same: Procedure for Assertion of

(a) Mental illness, disease or defect, precluding responsibility, is an affirmative defense which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence. (b) The defendant may not introduce evidence that he is not criminally responsible, as defined in § 7.16, unless he has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness, disease or defect. (c) The defendant may not, except upon good cause shown, introduce in his case in chief expert testimony regarding his state of mind pursuant to § 7.19 unless he has given notice as provide in Subsection (d). (d) The defendant shall plead not guilty by reason of mental illness, disease or defect, or shall give notice, in open court or in writing, that his mental condition will or may be in issue not later than ten days after his arraignment or at such later time as the court for good cause may allow. If such notice is given prior to or at the time of arraignment, the court shall defer the entry of a plea until the filing of the reports provided in § 7.25. Upon the giving of such notice or upon a plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness, disease or defect, the court shall order an examination to be conducted, as provided in § 7.25. (e) Upon the filing of the reports provided in § 7.25, the defendant shall plead if he has not previously done so and the court shall set a date for trial. The trial shall not be held earlier than ten days after the filing of the reports. SOURCE: M.P.C. § 4.03(1),(2); *Cal. § 532 (T.D.2 1968); Mass. ch. 263, § 27(a), (b); N.J. § 2C:4-3 (a), (b). CROSS-REFERENCES: Cal. PC § 1026. COMMENT: This Section is new to Guam and provides a much needed procedure and notice when a defendant is going to raise the issue of sanity. Penal Code procedure is entirely lacking, with the defendant able to bring on such evidence without advance warning to the prosecution with the result that the prosecution cannot adequately prepare a rebuttal to such assertion. Note that no split trial provisions, such as are found in existing California Penal Code § 1026, are provided for. California has developed a concept of “limited responsibility” as a defense without requiring notice or plea and this has largely destroyed the usefulness of the split trial. However, Guam has not yet developed nor accepted the California concept of “limited responsibility”. Therefore, it would appear that any mental state less than full responsibility is governed by this Section.