Mental disease or defect, not guilty plea based on, pretrialinvestigation--evidence--notice of defense--examination, reportsconfidential--statements not admissible, exception--presumption ofcompetency--verdict contents--order of commitment to department.
552.030. 1. A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, atthe time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect suchperson was incapable of knowing and appreciating the nature, quality, orwrongfulness of such person's conduct.
2. Evidence of mental disease or defect excluding responsibilityshall not be admissible at trial of the accused unless the accused, at thetime of entering such accused's plea to the charge, pleads not guilty byreason of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, or unlesswithin ten days after a plea of not guilty, or at such later date as thecourt may for good cause permit, the accused files a written notice of suchaccused's purpose to rely on such defense. Such a plea or notice shall notdeprive the accused of other defenses. The state may accept a defense ofmental disease or defect excluding responsibility, whether raised by pleaor written notice, if the accused has no other defense and files a writtennotice to that effect. The state shall not accept a defense of mentaldisease or defect excluding responsibility in the absence of any pretrialevaluation as described in this section or section 552.020. Upon thestate's acceptance of the defense of mental disease or defect excludingresponsibility, the court shall proceed to order the commitment of theaccused as provided in section 552.040 in cases of persons acquitted on theground of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, and furtherproceedings shall be had regarding the confinement and release of theaccused as provided in section 552.040.
3. Whenever the accused has pleaded mental disease or defectexcluding responsibility or has given the written notice provided insubsection 2 of this section, and such defense has not been accepted asprovided in subsection 2 of this section, the court shall, after notice andupon motion of either the state or the accused, by order of record, appointone or more private psychiatrists or psychologists, as defined in section632.005, RSMo, or physicians with a minimum of one year training orexperience in providing treatment or services to mentally retarded ormentally ill individuals, who are neither employees nor contractors of thedepartment of mental health for purposes of performing the examination inquestion, to examine the accused, or shall direct the director of thedepartment of mental health, or the director's designee, to have theaccused so examined by one or more psychiatrists or psychologists, asdefined in section 632.005, RSMo, or physicians with a minimum of one yeartraining or experience in providing treatment or services to mentallyretarded or mentally ill individuals designated by the director, or thedirector's designee, as qualified to perform examinations pursuant to thischapter. The order shall direct that written report or reports of suchexamination be filed with the clerk of the court. No private psychiatrist,psychologist, or physician shall be appointed by the court unless suchpsychiatrist, psychologist or physician has consented to act. Theexaminations ordered shall be made at such time and place and under suchconditions as the court deems proper; except that, if the order directs thedirector of the department of mental health to have the accused examined,the director, or the director's designee, shall determine the time, placeand conditions under which the examination shall be conducted. The ordermay include provisions for the interview of witnesses and may require theprovision of police reports to the department for use in evaluation. If anexamination provided in section 552.020 was made and the report of suchexamination included an opinion as to whether, at the time of the allegedcriminal conduct, the accused, as a result of mental disease or defect, didnot know or appreciate the nature, quality or wrongfulness of suchaccused's conduct or as a result of mental disease or defect was incapableof conforming such accused's conduct to the requirements of law, suchreport may be received in evidence, and no new examination shall berequired by the court unless, in the discretion of the court, anotherexamination is necessary. If an examination is ordered pursuant to thissection, the report shall contain the information required in subsections 3and 4 of section 552.020. Within ten days after receiving a copy of suchreport, both the accused and the state shall, upon written request, beentitled to an order granting them an examination of the accused by anexaminer of such accused's or its own choosing and at such accused's or itsexpense. The clerk of the court shall deliver copies of the report orreports to the prosecuting or circuit attorney and to the accused or hiscounsel. No reports required by this subsection shall be public records orbe open to the public. Any examination performed pursuant to thissubsection shall be completed and the results shall be filed with the courtwithin sixty days of the date it is received by the department or privatepsychiatrist, psychologist or physician unless the court, for good cause,orders otherwise.
4. If the report contains the recommendation that the accused shouldbe held in custody in a suitable hospital facility pending trial, and ifthe accused is not admitted to bail, or released on other conditions, thecourt may order that the accused be committed to or held in a suitablehospital facility pending trial.
5. No statement made by the accused in the course of any suchexamination and no information received by any physician or other person inthe course thereof, whether such examination was made with or without theconsent of the accused or upon the accused's motion or upon that of others,shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the issue of whetherthe accused committed the act charged against the accused in any criminalproceeding then or thereafter pending in any court, state or federal. Thestatement or information shall be admissible in evidence for or against theaccused only on the issue of the accused's mental condition, whether or notit would otherwise be deemed to be a privileged communication. If thestatement or information is admitted for or against the accused on theissue of the accused's mental condition, the court shall, both orally atthe time of its admission and later by instruction, inform the jury that itmust not consider such statement or information as any evidence of whetherthe accused committed the act charged against the accused.
6. All persons are presumed to be free of mental disease or defectexcluding responsibility for their conduct, whether or not previouslyadjudicated in this or any other state to be or to have been sexual orsocial psychopaths, or incompetent; provided, however, the court may admitevidence presented at such adjudication based on its probative value. Theissue of whether any person had a mental disease or defect excludingresponsibility for such person's conduct is one for the trier of fact todecide upon the introduction of substantial evidence of lack of suchresponsibility. But, in the absence of such evidence, the presumptionshall be conclusive. Upon the introduction of substantial evidence of lackof such responsibility, the presumption shall not disappear and shall alonebe sufficient to take that issue to the trier of fact. The jury shall beinstructed as to the existence and nature of such presumption whenrequested by the state and, where the issue of such responsibility is onefor the jury to decide, the jury shall be told that the burden rests uponthe accused to show by a preponderance or greater weight of the credibleevidence that the defendant was suffering from a mental disease or defectexcluding responsibility at the time of the conduct charged against thedefendant. At the request of the defense the jury shall be instructed bythe court as to the contents of subsection 2 of section 552.040.
7. When the accused is acquitted on the ground of mental disease ordefect excluding responsibility, the verdict and the judgment shall sostate as well as state the offense for which the accused was acquitted.The clerk of the court shall furnish a copy of any judgment or order ofcommitment to the department of mental health pursuant to this section tothe criminal records central repository pursuant to section 43.503, RSMo.
(1966) Statement by psychiatrist that defendant, charged with murder, was not suffering from a mental disease or defect excluding responsibility for the acts with which he was charged, and that "treatment or rehabilitation of the type of disorder shown by this man would be of no avail with the methods available today. If unrestrained further antisocial acts by this man will undoubtedly recur in the same way as in the past" was not admissible as it was highly prejudicial to defendant's right to be tried only for the offense with which he was charged. State v. Nickens (Mo.), 403 S.W.2d 582.
(1969) The purpose of this section is to prevent the surprise use of the defense of insanity precluding adequate rebuttal by the prosecution. State v. Holmes (Mo.), 439 S.W.2d 518.
(1973) Criminal defendant is presumed to be free of mental disease unless defendant introduces substantial evidence of lack of responsibility, whereupon the matter becomes one for the trier of facts. In absence of such evidence, the presumption is conclusive. State v. Bacon (A.), 501 S.W.2d 499.
(1974) Held written notice of no other defense is prerequisite to acceptance of intent to enter plea of guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and basing commitment on such notice of intent to plead without hearing. Briggs v. State (A.), 509 S.W.2d 154.
(1974) Held that if defendant requests a "commitment" instruction it is mandatory for the court to give one if evidence of mental disease or defect was present. State v. Pike (A.), 516 S.W.2d 505.
(1974) When the General Assembly adopted provisions of the Model Penal Code, it did so with the intention of adopting the accompanying interpretation thereof by the drafters of that provision. State v. Anderson (Mo.banc), 515 S.W.2d 534.
(1981) Subsection 3 of section 552.030 is an exception to the general bar enunciated in 552.020 precluding use of statements made by the accused in the course of any examination or treatment on the issue of guilt. State v. Strubberg (Mo.), 616 S.W.2d 809.
(1981) The accused, for the purpose of attempting to establish his partial responsibility or his diminished capacity, may introduce evidence obtained in the section 552.020 examination. State v. Strubberg (Mo.), 616 S.W.2d 809.
(1981) The partial responsibility doctrine may not be used by a defendant to avoid all criminal responsibility for his acts; to expunge himself of all criminal responsibility by reason of a mental disease or defect, the defendant must plead not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and must comply with all the conditions of the statute. State v. Strubberg (Mo.), 616 S.W.2d 809.
Mental disease or defect, not guilty plea based on, pretrialinvestigation--evidence--notice of defense--examination, reportsconfidential--statements not admissible, exception--presumption ofcompetency--verdict contents--order of commitment to department.
552.030. 1. A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, atthe time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect suchperson was incapable of knowing and appreciating the nature, quality, orwrongfulness of such person's conduct.
2. Evidence of mental disease or defect excluding responsibilityshall not be admissible at trial of the accused unless the accused, at thetime of entering such accused's plea to the charge, pleads not guilty byreason of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, or unlesswithin ten days after a plea of not guilty, or at such later date as thecourt may for good cause permit, the accused files a written notice of suchaccused's purpose to rely on such defense. Such a plea or notice shall notdeprive the accused of other defenses. The state may accept a defense ofmental disease or defect excluding responsibility, whether raised by pleaor written notice, if the accused has no other defense and files a writtennotice to that effect. The state shall not accept a defense of mentaldisease or defect excluding responsibility in the absence of any pretrialevaluation as described in this section or section 552.020. Upon thestate's acceptance of the defense of mental disease or defect excludingresponsibility, the court shall proceed to order the commitment of theaccused as provided in section 552.040 in cases of persons acquitted on theground of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, and furtherproceedings shall be had regarding the confinement and release of theaccused as provided in section 552.040.
3. Whenever the accused has pleaded mental disease or defectexcluding responsibility or has given the written notice provided insubsection 2 of this section, and such defense has not been accepted asprovided in subsection 2 of this section, the court shall, after notice andupon motion of either the state or the accused, by order of record, appointone or more private psychiatrists or psychologists, as defined in section632.005, RSMo, or physicians with a minimum of one year training orexperience in providing treatment or services to mentally retarded ormentally ill individuals, who are neither employees nor contractors of thedepartment of mental health for purposes of performing the examination inquestion, to examine the accused, or shall direct the director of thedepartment of mental health, or the director's designee, to have theaccused so examined by one or more psychiatrists or psychologists, asdefined in section 632.005, RSMo, or physicians with a minimum of one yeartraining or experience in providing treatment or services to mentallyretarded or mentally ill individuals designated by the director, or thedirector's designee, as qualified to perform examinations pursuant to thischapter. The order shall direct that written report or reports of suchexamination be filed with the clerk of the court. No private psychiatrist,psychologist, or physician shall be appointed by the court unless suchpsychiatrist, psychologist or physician has consented to act. Theexaminations ordered shall be made at such time and place and under suchconditions as the court deems proper; except that, if the order directs thedirector of the department of mental health to have the accused examined,the director, or the director's designee, shall determine the time, placeand conditions under which the examination shall be conducted. The ordermay include provisions for the interview of witnesses and may require theprovision of police reports to the department for use in evaluation. If anexamination provided in section 552.020 was made and the report of suchexamination included an opinion as to whether, at the time of the allegedcriminal conduct, the accused, as a result of mental disease or defect, didnot know or appreciate the nature, quality or wrongfulness of suchaccused's conduct or as a result of mental disease or defect was incapableof conforming such accused's conduct to the requirements of law, suchreport may be received in evidence, and no new examination shall berequired by the court unless, in the discretion of the court, anotherexamination is necessary. If an examination is ordered pursuant to thissection, the report shall contain the information required in subsections 3and 4 of section 552.020. Within ten days after receiving a copy of suchreport, both the accused and the state shall, upon written request, beentitled to an order granting them an examination of the accused by anexaminer of such accused's or its own choosing and at such accused's or itsexpense. The clerk of the court shall deliver copies of the report orreports to the prosecuting or circuit attorney and to the accused or hiscounsel. No reports required by this subsection shall be public records orbe open to the public. Any examination performed pursuant to thissubsection shall be completed and the results shall be filed with the courtwithin sixty days of the date it is received by the department or privatepsychiatrist, psychologist or physician unless the court, for good cause,orders otherwise.
4. If the report contains the recommendation that the accused shouldbe held in custody in a suitable hospital facility pending trial, and ifthe accused is not admitted to bail, or released on other conditions, thecourt may order that the accused be committed to or held in a suitablehospital facility pending trial.
5. No statement made by the accused in the course of any suchexamination and no information received by any physician or other person inthe course thereof, whether such examination was made with or without theconsent of the accused or upon the accused's motion or upon that of others,shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the issue of whetherthe accused committed the act charged against the accused in any criminalproceeding then or thereafter pending in any court, state or federal. Thestatement or information shall be admissible in evidence for or against theaccused only on the issue of the accused's mental condition, whether or notit would otherwise be deemed to be a privileged communication. If thestatement or information is admitted for or against the accused on theissue of the accused's mental condition, the court shall, both orally atthe time of its admission and later by instruction, inform the jury that itmust not consider such statement or information as any evidence of whetherthe accused committed the act charged against the accused.
6. All persons are presumed to be free of mental disease or defectexcluding responsibility for their conduct, whether or not previouslyadjudicated in this or any other state to be or to have been sexual orsocial psychopaths, or incompetent; provided, however, the court may admitevidence presented at such adjudication based on its probative value. Theissue of whether any person had a mental disease or defect excludingresponsibility for such person's conduct is one for the trier of fact todecide upon the introduction of substantial evidence of lack of suchresponsibility. But, in the absence of such evidence, the presumptionshall be conclusive. Upon the introduction of substantial evidence of lackof such responsibility, the presumption shall not disappear and shall alonebe sufficient to take that issue to the trier of fact. The jury shall beinstructed as to the existence and nature of such presumption whenrequested by the state and, where the issue of such responsibility is onefor the jury to decide, the jury shall be told that the burden rests uponthe accused to show by a preponderance or greater weight of the credibleevidence that the defendant was suffering from a mental disease or defectexcluding responsibility at the time of the conduct charged against thedefendant. At the request of the defense the jury shall be instructed bythe court as to the contents of subsection 2 of section 552.040.
7. When the accused is acquitted on the ground of mental disease ordefect excluding responsibility, the verdict and the judgment shall sostate as well as state the offense for which the accused was acquitted.The clerk of the court shall furnish a copy of any judgment or order ofcommitment to the department of mental health pursuant to this section tothe criminal records central repository pursuant to section 43.503, RSMo.
(1966) Statement by psychiatrist that defendant, charged with murder, was not suffering from a mental disease or defect excluding responsibility for the acts with which he was charged, and that "treatment or rehabilitation of the type of disorder shown by this man would be of no avail with the methods available today. If unrestrained further antisocial acts by this man will undoubtedly recur in the same way as in the past" was not admissible as it was highly prejudicial to defendant's right to be tried only for the offense with which he was charged. State v. Nickens (Mo.), 403 S.W.2d 582.
(1969) The purpose of this section is to prevent the surprise use of the defense of insanity precluding adequate rebuttal by the prosecution. State v. Holmes (Mo.), 439 S.W.2d 518.
(1973) Criminal defendant is presumed to be free of mental disease unless defendant introduces substantial evidence of lack of responsibility, whereupon the matter becomes one for the trier of facts. In absence of such evidence, the presumption is conclusive. State v. Bacon (A.), 501 S.W.2d 499.
(1974) Held written notice of no other defense is prerequisite to acceptance of intent to enter plea of guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and basing commitment on such notice of intent to plead without hearing. Briggs v. State (A.), 509 S.W.2d 154.
(1974) Held that if defendant requests a "commitment" instruction it is mandatory for the court to give one if evidence of mental disease or defect was present. State v. Pike (A.), 516 S.W.2d 505.
(1974) When the General Assembly adopted provisions of the Model Penal Code, it did so with the intention of adopting the accompanying interpretation thereof by the drafters of that provision. State v. Anderson (Mo.banc), 515 S.W.2d 534.
(1981) Subsection 3 of section 552.030 is an exception to the general bar enunciated in 552.020 precluding use of statements made by the accused in the course of any examination or treatment on the issue of guilt. State v. Strubberg (Mo.), 616 S.W.2d 809.
(1981) The accused, for the purpose of attempting to establish his partial responsibility or his diminished capacity, may introduce evidence obtained in the section 552.020 examination. State v. Strubberg (Mo.), 616 S.W.2d 809.
(1981) The partial responsibility doctrine may not be used by a defendant to avoid all criminal responsibility for his acts; to expunge himself of all criminal responsibility by reason of a mental disease or defect, the defendant must plead not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and must comply with all the conditions of the statute. State v. Strubberg (Mo.), 616 S.W.2d 809.
Mental disease or defect, not guilty plea based on, pretrialinvestigation--evidence--notice of defense--examination, reportsconfidential--statements not admissible, exception--presumption ofcompetency--verdict contents--order of commitment to department.
552.030. 1. A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, atthe time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect suchperson was incapable of knowing and appreciating the nature, quality, orwrongfulness of such person's conduct.
2. Evidence of mental disease or defect excluding responsibilityshall not be admissible at trial of the accused unless the accused, at thetime of entering such accused's plea to the charge, pleads not guilty byreason of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, or unlesswithin ten days after a plea of not guilty, or at such later date as thecourt may for good cause permit, the accused files a written notice of suchaccused's purpose to rely on such defense. Such a plea or notice shall notdeprive the accused of other defenses. The state may accept a defense ofmental disease or defect excluding responsibility, whether raised by pleaor written notice, if the accused has no other defense and files a writtennotice to that effect. The state shall not accept a defense of mentaldisease or defect excluding responsibility in the absence of any pretrialevaluation as described in this section or section 552.020. Upon thestate's acceptance of the defense of mental disease or defect excludingresponsibility, the court shall proceed to order the commitment of theaccused as provided in section 552.040 in cases of persons acquitted on theground of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, and furtherproceedings shall be had regarding the confinement and release of theaccused as provided in section 552.040.
3. Whenever the accused has pleaded mental disease or defectexcluding responsibility or has given the written notice provided insubsection 2 of this section, and such defense has not been accepted asprovided in subsection 2 of this section, the court shall, after notice andupon motion of either the state or the accused, by order of record, appointone or more private psychiatrists or psychologists, as defined in section632.005, RSMo, or physicians with a minimum of one year training orexperience in providing treatment or services to mentally retarded ormentally ill individuals, who are neither employees nor contractors of thedepartment of mental health for purposes of performing the examination inquestion, to examine the accused, or shall direct the director of thedepartment of mental health, or the director's designee, to have theaccused so examined by one or more psychiatrists or psychologists, asdefined in section 632.005, RSMo, or physicians with a minimum of one yeartraining or experience in providing treatment or services to mentallyretarded or mentally ill individuals designated by the director, or thedirector's designee, as qualified to perform examinations pursuant to thischapter. The order shall direct that written report or reports of suchexamination be filed with the clerk of the court. No private psychiatrist,psychologist, or physician shall be appointed by the court unless suchpsychiatrist, psychologist or physician has consented to act. Theexaminations ordered shall be made at such time and place and under suchconditions as the court deems proper; except that, if the order directs thedirector of the department of mental health to have the accused examined,the director, or the director's designee, shall determine the time, placeand conditions under which the examination shall be conducted. The ordermay include provisions for the interview of witnesses and may require theprovision of police reports to the department for use in evaluation. If anexamination provided in section 552.020 was made and the report of suchexamination included an opinion as to whether, at the time of the allegedcriminal conduct, the accused, as a result of mental disease or defect, didnot know or appreciate the nature, quality or wrongfulness of suchaccused's conduct or as a result of mental disease or defect was incapableof conforming such accused's conduct to the requirements of law, suchreport may be received in evidence, and no new examination shall berequired by the court unless, in the discretion of the court, anotherexamination is necessary. If an examination is ordered pursuant to thissection, the report shall contain the information required in subsections 3and 4 of section 552.020. Within ten days after receiving a copy of suchreport, both the accused and the state shall, upon written request, beentitled to an order granting them an examination of the accused by anexaminer of such accused's or its own choosing and at such accused's or itsexpense. The clerk of the court shall deliver copies of the report orreports to the prosecuting or circuit attorney and to the accused or hiscounsel. No reports required by this subsection shall be public records orbe open to the public. Any examination performed pursuant to thissubsection shall be completed and the results shall be filed with the courtwithin sixty days of the date it is received by the department or privatepsychiatrist, psychologist or physician unless the court, for good cause,orders otherwise.
4. If the report contains the recommendation that the accused shouldbe held in custody in a suitable hospital facility pending trial, and ifthe accused is not admitted to bail, or released on other conditions, thecourt may order that the accused be committed to or held in a suitablehospital facility pending trial.
5. No statement made by the accused in the course of any suchexamination and no information received by any physician or other person inthe course thereof, whether such examination was made with or without theconsent of the accused or upon the accused's motion or upon that of others,shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the issue of whetherthe accused committed the act charged against the accused in any criminalproceeding then or thereafter pending in any court, state or federal. Thestatement or information shall be admissible in evidence for or against theaccused only on the issue of the accused's mental condition, whether or notit would otherwise be deemed to be a privileged communication. If thestatement or information is admitted for or against the accused on theissue of the accused's mental condition, the court shall, both orally atthe time of its admission and later by instruction, inform the jury that itmust not consider such statement or information as any evidence of whetherthe accused committed the act charged against the accused.
6. All persons are presumed to be free of mental disease or defectexcluding responsibility for their conduct, whether or not previouslyadjudicated in this or any other state to be or to have been sexual orsocial psychopaths, or incompetent; provided, however, the court may admitevidence presented at such adjudication based on its probative value. Theissue of whether any person had a mental disease or defect excludingresponsibility for such person's conduct is one for the trier of fact todecide upon the introduction of substantial evidence of lack of suchresponsibility. But, in the absence of such evidence, the presumptionshall be conclusive. Upon the introduction of substantial evidence of lackof such responsibility, the presumption shall not disappear and shall alonebe sufficient to take that issue to the trier of fact. The jury shall beinstructed as to the existence and nature of such presumption whenrequested by the state and, where the issue of such responsibility is onefor the jury to decide, the jury shall be told that the burden rests uponthe accused to show by a preponderance or greater weight of the credibleevidence that the defendant was suffering from a mental disease or defectexcluding responsibility at the time of the conduct charged against thedefendant. At the request of the defense the jury shall be instructed bythe court as to the contents of subsection 2 of section 552.040.
7. When the accused is acquitted on the ground of mental disease ordefect excluding responsibility, the verdict and the judgment shall sostate as well as state the offense for which the accused was acquitted.The clerk of the court shall furnish a copy of any judgment or order ofcommitment to the department of mental health pursuant to this section tothe criminal records central repository pursuant to section 43.503, RSMo.
(1966) Statement by psychiatrist that defendant, charged with murder, was not suffering from a mental disease or defect excluding responsibility for the acts with which he was charged, and that "treatment or rehabilitation of the type of disorder shown by this man would be of no avail with the methods available today. If unrestrained further antisocial acts by this man will undoubtedly recur in the same way as in the past" was not admissible as it was highly prejudicial to defendant's right to be tried only for the offense with which he was charged. State v. Nickens (Mo.), 403 S.W.2d 582.
(1969) The purpose of this section is to prevent the surprise use of the defense of insanity precluding adequate rebuttal by the prosecution. State v. Holmes (Mo.), 439 S.W.2d 518.
(1973) Criminal defendant is presumed to be free of mental disease unless defendant introduces substantial evidence of lack of responsibility, whereupon the matter becomes one for the trier of facts. In absence of such evidence, the presumption is conclusive. State v. Bacon (A.), 501 S.W.2d 499.
(1974) Held written notice of no other defense is prerequisite to acceptance of intent to enter plea of guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and basing commitment on such notice of intent to plead without hearing. Briggs v. State (A.), 509 S.W.2d 154.
(1974) Held that if defendant requests a "commitment" instruction it is mandatory for the court to give one if evidence of mental disease or defect was present. State v. Pike (A.), 516 S.W.2d 505.
(1974) When the General Assembly adopted provisions of the Model Penal Code, it did so with the intention of adopting the accompanying interpretation thereof by the drafters of that provision. State v. Anderson (Mo.banc), 515 S.W.2d 534.
(1981) Subsection 3 of section 552.030 is an exception to the general bar enunciated in 552.020 precluding use of statements made by the accused in the course of any examination or treatment on the issue of guilt. State v. Strubberg (Mo.), 616 S.W.2d 809.
(1981) The accused, for the purpose of attempting to establish his partial responsibility or his diminished capacity, may introduce evidence obtained in the section 552.020 examination. State v. Strubberg (Mo.), 616 S.W.2d 809.
(1981) The partial responsibility doctrine may not be used by a defendant to avoid all criminal responsibility for his acts; to expunge himself of all criminal responsibility by reason of a mental disease or defect, the defendant must plead not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and must comply with all the conditions of the statute. State v. Strubberg (Mo.), 616 S.W.2d 809.
