So far Elizabeth Holtzman, the Brooklyn District Attorney, has indicated that she plans to continue the prosecution. Regardless of the outcome, Miss Holtzman predicts that the premenstsrual stress defense, known as P.M.S., will surface in other cases. Her office, she said, is gathering scientific data and expert testimony to rebut the defense.

Criminal Court Judge Jerome M. Becker, who heard arguments on the dismissal late in April, said in court that the defense was credible: ''Inasmuch as disruptions of the mind are admissible evidence in a criminal case, why should physical eruptions of the body likewise not be admitted?''

Miss Holtzman said, on the other hand, that there was no ''scientific evidence to demonstrate that P.M.S. is a legitimate defense to a criminal action or that it ought to be.'' Miss Benson said that while there were no ''conclusive scientific tests'' to substantiate the effect of the stress, there are sufficient data to show that women have committed violent acts without criminal intent in the premenstrual period.

In the British cases premenstrual stress was accepted as a mitigating circumstance in the sentencing of two women accused of violent crimes.

Other hormonal deficiencies, among them diabetes and hypoglycemia, have been raised in American courts in an attempt to show that a suspect suffered from diminished capacity at the time a crime was committed. In New York State diminished capacity is admitted as mitigation in homicide cases, but the standard is stringent, legal scholars say, for the defense must prove that the accused acted under the influence of ''extreme emotional disturbance.'' 'No Scientific Evidence'