State v. Glenn., 468 P.3d 126

Defendant Michael Glenn was charged with first-degree terroristic threatening after an altercation in which he threatened a complaining witness with a baseball bat.
Three court-ordered mental-health examiners evaluated Glenn; two opined he was unfit and lacked penal responsibility at the time of the offense, one found him fit and likely penally responsible.
After treatment and reevaluation, the circuit court found Glenn fit to stand trial; he elected to pursue a self-defense theory at trial rather than an insanity/penal-responsibility defense.
No examiners testified at trial; the defense did not request a penal-responsibility instruction or object to its omission; the jury convicted Glenn and he was sentenced to five years.
The ICA affirmed; the Hawai‘i Supreme Court held that (a) due process under the Hawai‘i Constitution protects the penal-responsibility defense and (b) prospectively courts must obtain a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver (a colloquy) when notice arises that penal responsibility is an issue, but a court need not sua sponte instruct the jury when trial evidence is insufficient to support the defense.
Because the new colloquy rule is prospective and the trial record lacked sufficient evidence to require an instruction, the Court affirmed Glenn’s conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court must obtain on-the-record waiver/colloquy before defendant waives penal-responsibility defense	State: no preexisting duty; waiver decisions are counsel’s prerogative when defendant is competent	Glenn: court should have ensured waiver was knowing, intelligent, voluntary given examiners’ opinions	Court: prospectively requires colloquy when court receives notice that penal responsibility is an issue; waiver must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary
Whether court must sua sponte instruct jury on lack of penal responsibility when pretrial examiners report lack of responsibility	State: no duty absent trial evidence; read §704‑408 with §701‑115 and §704‑402	Glenn: mandatory instruction (“shall”) triggered by examiner reports	Court: no duty to sua sponte instruct unless sufficient evidence is presented at trial to support the defense; §704‑408 must be read in pari materia and was not meant to force jury instruction without trial evidence
Whether sufficient evidence at trial required a penal-responsibility instruction	State: movements, odd testimony insufficient without expert proof at trial	Glenn: bizarre trial statements and prior examiner reports warranted instruction	Court: insufficient — examiner reports did not come in at trial and Glenn’s isolated odd statements were inadequate to show lack of penal responsibility; no plain error

Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (criminal liability requires wrongful intent)
Kahler v. Kansas, 140 S. Ct. 1021 (2020) (federal due process discussion of insanity defense)
Frendak v. United States, 408 A.2d 364 (D.C. 1979) (trial court must ensure defendant knowingly waives insanity defense)
Treece v. State, 547 A.2d 1054 (Md. 1988) (insanity waiver akin to plea decision; waiver inquiry required)
State v. Uyesugi, [citation="100 Hawai'i 442"] (Haw. 2002) (defendant bears burden to produce evidence for lack of penal responsibility)
State v. Moeller, 50 Haw. 110 (Haw. 1967) (Hawai‘i recognition of M’Naghten‑style test and insanity principles)
Tachibana v. State, [citation="79 Hawai'i 226"] (Haw. 1995) (colloquy practice for protecting defendant rights)