its legislative history, and this court’s case law. ORS 161.295(1) provides: “A person is guilty except for insanity if, as a result of mental disease or defect at the time of engaging in criminal conduct, the person lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of the conduct or to conform the conduct to the requirements of law." (Emphasis added.) The form of the verdict, “guilty except for insanity,” implies that the trier of fact’s initial inquiry is one of criminal culpability. A trial court, when appropriate, has always asked a jury if it found the defendant “guilty,” “not guilty,” or “guilty except for insanity” (or some verbal variation of the third option). See Leland v. Oregon, 343 US 790, 793-94, 72 S Ct 1002, 96 L Ed 1302, reh’g den 344 US 848 (1952) (<HOLDING>). In such a case, if the state did not prove
recognizing that under puerto rico law res judicata may not apply if  public policy demands an exception but noting that this exception was successfully argued in only two cases and concluding that public policy does not demand an exception in this case recognizing this courts limitations in rendering qualitative opinions about witnesses testimony recognizing this method recognizing that the fear experienced by the victim before death is a significant factor in determining the existence of this aggravating circumstance recognizing exception