GCA Title 9, Chapter 7
CHAPTER 7 EXEMPTIONS AND DEFENSES
2014 NOTE: Public Law 13-185 (Sept. 2, 1976) established the Criminal and Correctional Code, which was a separate publication. In the Introduction to the Criminal and Correctional Code (1977), the Compiler of Laws stated that it was a ‘whole new Code and should be interpreted as such. It follows closely the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code of 1962.’ The 1977 publication included Notes and Comments from the Law Revision Commission, which were revised by the Compiler. The Criminal and Correctional Code (1977) as adopted by P.L. 13-185 and amended by the Guam Legislature, was ‘recodified’ as Title 9 of the Guam Code Annotated pursuant to P.L. 15-104:8 (Mar. 5, 1980). The annotations from the 1977 publication were included in Title 9 when it was added to the GCA, and have been retained in past print publications of the GCA. For historical purposes, these annotations are included herein. The Source notes have been updated to reflect subsequent changes to each provision. Unless otherwise indicated, the Notes and Comments have been retained as they were printed in past publications of the GCA.
ARTICLE 1 EXEMPTIONS
§ 7.10 Exemption from Criminal Liability Due to Juvenile Status.
§ 7.10. Exemption from Criminal Liability Due to Juvenile Status.
No person may be tried for or convicted of an offense if: (a) his age at the time he is charged with an offense places him within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Division of the Superior Court; (b) he was made the subject of a petition to commence proceedings in the juvenile court because of having committed the offense and the juvenile court has not made an order that he be prosecuted under general law; or (c) he was certified to the juvenile court and the juvenile court has not made an order directing that he be prosecuted under general law. SOURCE: Guam P.C. § 26(1) (2); M.P.C. § 4.10; Cal. § 408 (T.D.1, 1967); *Cal. § 500 (1971); Mass. ch. 263, § 24; N.J. § 2C:4-10; Subsection (a) amended by P.L. 17-012:3 (June 22, 1983). CROSS-REFERENCES: Code of Civil Procedure §§ 252, 253, 255. COURT DECISIONS: D.C. GUAM: APP. DIV., 1982 § 7.10 (as it existed at the time of this case) repealed by implication portions of §§ 250 to 253 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the result that the determination of whether or not a person is a minor depends upon the time the alleged crime was committed, not the age at which the minor was apprehended or charged. People v. Quinata D.C. CR-81-004A; Aff’d C.A.9. [Note that the Legislature, by P.L. 17012 (June 22, 1983) (Bill 78), repealed and reenacted 9 GCA § 7.10 to, specifically, reverse this decision.]
ARTICLE 2
MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
- § 7.16. Defense: Mental Disease or Defect.
- § 7.19. Same: Admissibility of Evidence Showing.
- § 7.22. Same: Procedure for Assertion of.
- § 7.25. Psychiatric Examination and Procedure.
- § 7.28. Acquittal: Order for Civil Commitment.
- § 7.31. Acquittal: Verdict Must State Reason as Mental Disease Defect.
- § 7.34. Acquittal: Court Order of Commitment or Release; Petition for Discharge.
- § 7.37. Mental Disease: A Bar to Proceeding or Sentence.
- § 7.40. Same: Hearing to Determine.
- § 7.43. Same: Hearing Procedure for Commitment and Release.
- § 7.46. Same: Commitment as Exonerating Bail.
- § 7.49. Same: Hearing and Procedure When Mental Disease or Defect Occurs After Sentence.
- § 7.52. Transfer of Committed Person Off-Island: Hearing and Notice to Attorney General Required.
§ 7.16. Defense: Mental Disease or Defect.
A person is not criminally responsible for conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental illness, disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to know or understand what he was doing, or to know or understand that his conduct was wrongful, or to control his actions. SOURCE: Guam PC, § 26 Subsection (3) and (4); M.P.C. § 4.01; *Cal. § 530 (T.D.2 1968); Cal. § 535 (1971); Mass. ch. 263 § 26; N.J. § 2C:4-1. People v. Wolff , 61 Cal. 2d 795, 40 Cal. Rptr. 271 (1964). COMMENT: § 7.16 is based upon the California version of the M’Naghten Rule as it is stated in People v. Wolff . In the Wolff case the California Supreme Court made a conscious effort to broaden the exclusive emphasis on the cognitional element of the mind to which the M’Naghten formula is restricted. It did this by emphasizing mere knowledge of the difference between right and wrong is not the proper standard for judging responsibility but that a capacity or ability to understand is also required. The California test tends to place illogical limits on psychiatric testimony. The last clause of the Section ‘or to control his actions’ is directed specifically to this element volitional capacity in accord with The American Law Institute’s approach. The Ninth Circuit has adopted another form of this ALI standard. However, now that Guam has a substantive statutory test for mental responsibility, it would appear that the Ninth Circuit would follow substantive Guam Law as it has in the past. The words ‘mental illness, disease or defect’ are intended to make it clear that the Section in concerned solely with lack of responsibility resulting from an involuntary condition of the mind which excludes capacity to have criminal intent or control behavior. There is comparable terminology used in the United States Manual for Courts-Martial as well as the words used in the Statutes or decisional law of jurisdictions which have followed the pattern of the Model Penal Code. See California Joint Legislative Committee for Revision of the Penal Code, Penal Code Revision Project 72-73 (Tentative draft No. 2, June 1968).
§ 7.19. Same: Admissibility of Evidence Showing.
Evidence that the defendant suffered from mental illness, disease or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to prove the defendant’s state of mind. SOURCE: M.P.C. § 4.02; *Cal. 531 (T.D.2 1968); Mass. ch. 263, § 27(1); N.J. § 2C:4-2(a). COMMENT: This Section represent a codification of Guam decisional law and represents no change. See also People v. Wells , 33 Cal. 2d 330, 202 Pac. 2d 53 (1949) People v. Gorshen , 51 Cal. 2d 716, 336 Pac. 2d 492 (1959).
§ 7.22. 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.
§ 7.25. Psychiatric Examination and Procedure.
(a) Whenever a plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness, disease or defect is entered or a notice is given under § 7.22, the court shall appoint at least one qualified psychiatrist or other qualified person (hereinafter referred to as psychiatrist) to examine the defendant and to report upon his mental condition. (b) Whenever, in the opinion of the court, any other expert evidence concerning the defendant’s mental condition is, or will be required by the court or either party, the court shall appoint one or more such experts to examine the defendant and to report upon his mental condition as the court may direct. (c) In addition to the expert witness appointed by the court, either party in a criminal action may retain other psychiatrists or other experts to examine the defendant and to report upon his mental condition. Experts retained pursuant to this Section shall be permitted to have reasonable access to the defendant for the purposes of examination and the giving of testimony. (d) The psychiatrists and other experts appointed by the court and those called by the prosecuting attorney shall be allowed, in addition to their actual traveling expenses, such fees as in the discretion of the court seem reasonable.
9 GCA CRIMES AND CORRECTIONS CH. 7 EXEMPTIONS AND DEFENSES
(e) On recommendation of the psychiatrists appointed by the court, the court may order the defendant committed to the Guam Memorial Hospital or any other suitable facility for observation and examination as it may designate for a period not to exceed thirty days, unless the court, for good cause, orders a longer period of commitment not to exceed sixty days. Any defendant so committed may be given such care and treatment as is determined to be necessary by the psychiatric staff of such institution or facility. A full report of any such care and treatment shall be included in the report required under Subsection (g). The superintendent or other person in charge of such institution or facility shall permit those psychiatrists or other experts appointed under this Section to have reasonable access to the defendant. (f) Copies of any reports, records, documents or information furnished by either party to the psychiatrists appointed pursuant to this Section shall be given to the other party in the action. Any psychiatrist appointed pursuant to this Section, or retained by either party, shall have the right to inspect and make copies of reports and records relating to the defendant in any facility or institution in which they are located. Compliance with this Section may be required by an appropriate order of the court. (g) Each psychiatrist appointed by the court who examines the defendant pursuant to this Section shall file a written report with the clerk of the court who shall deliver copies to each party. The report of the examination shall include, but need not be limited to, the following:
- A description of the nature of the examination;
- The number of examinations and duration of each examination;
- The sources of information about the defendant;
- A diagnosis or description of the defendant’s mental condition; (5) An opinion as to the defendant’s competency to be proceeded against, together with the reasons and basis for the opinion; (6) If the defendant has been convicted, an opinion as to his competency to be sentenced, together with the reasons and basis for the opinion; (7) If prior to conviction, an opinion as to whether or not the defendant was suffering from any mental illness, disease or defect at the time of the conduct alleged to have constituted the offense charged against the defendant and whether, as a result thereof, he lacked substantial capacity to know or understand what he was doing; or to know or understand that his conduct was wrongful or to control his actions; or the extent to which, as a consequence of mental illness, disease or defect, the defendant did or did not have a state of mind or the capacity to have a state of mind relevant to any issue in the trial of the action; (8) A report of the care and treatment received by defendant prior to the examination. (h) Upon the trial, the psychiatrists appointed by the court may be called as witnesses by either party to the action or by the court and when so called, shall be subject to all legal objections as to competency and bias and as to qualification as an expert witness. When called by the court or by either party to the action, the court may examine the psychiatrist, but either party shall have the same right to object to questions asked by the court and the evidence adduced as though the psychiatrist were called by an adverse party. When the psychiatrist is called and examined by the court, the parties may cross-examine him in the order directed be the court. When called by either party to the action, any adverse party may examine him the same as in the case of any other witness. (i) When any psychiatrist or other expert who has examined the defendant, whether or not appointed under this Section, testifies concerning the defendant’s mental condition, he shall be permitted to make a statement as to
9 GCA CRIMES AND CORRECTIONS CH. 7 EXEMPTIONS AND DEFENSES
(1) the nature of his examination, (2) his diagnosis of the mental condition of the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense charged, (3) an opinion, if relevant, of the extent to which, the defendant, as a result of mental illness, disease or defect, was incapable of knowing or understanding what he was doing, or that he did not know and understand that his conduct was wrongful, or of the extent to which his capacity to control his actions was substantially impaired, (4) an opinion, if relevant, that the defendant did or did not have the state of mind or capacity to have the state of mind which is in issue during the trial, or (5) an opinion, if relevant, of the defendant’s competency to be proceeded against or to be sentenced. The psychiatrist shall be permitted to make an explanation reasonably serving to clarify his diagnosis and opin