" Dr. Nakagawa agreed that these communications, as well as [McCarrick's] direction to Paulson to tell the girls it was an "accident" if they survived, could be taken into consideration in deciding whether [McCarrick] knew what she did was wrong.People v. McCarrick, 210 Cal. Rptr. 3d 838, 841-50 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). At the conclusion of the two-week guilt phase of trial, the jury found McCarrick guilty as charged of two counts of first degree murder with a multiple-murder special circumstance finding, and two counts of assault on a child causing death.
[Citations.] If the defendant is found guilty, the trial proceeds to the sanity phase, in which the defendant has the burden to prove 'by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.' [Citations.]" (People v. McCarrick (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 227, 246 (McCarrick).) At the guilt trial, the jury convicted defendant of the charged offense.
Under this test, a defendant is sane if he or she knew or understood the nature and quality of his or her acts and could distinguish right from wrong, both legally and morally, at the time of the offense. (People v. Skinner (1985) 39 Cal.3d 765, 775-777, 783; People v. McCarrick (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 227, 246.) All three doctors agreed Chambers suffered from severe mental illness, the illness caused him to shoot Thomas, and Chambers could appreciate the nature and quality of his acts at the time of the shooting.
CALCRIM No. 627 must be given on request when the evidence supports the theory. (People v. McCarrick (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 227, 243 (McCarrick).)
If the defendant is found guilty, the trial proceeds to the sanity phase, in which the defendant has the burden to prove 'by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.'" (People v. McCarrick (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 227, 246 (McCarrick), quoting § 25, subd. (b).)
At the sanity phase of a trial, "the defendant has the burden to prove 'by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.'" (People v. McCarrick (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 227, 246 (McCarrick), quoting § 25, subd. (b).) "Our Supreme Court has interpreted this statutory language to mean that insanity can be shown under either the 'nature and quality' prong or the 'right from wrong' prong of the test.
We may overturn a jury's finding of legal insanity only where it would be unreasonable to reject the evidence to the contrary. (People v. McCarrick (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 227, 247-248 (McCarrick).) Even uncontradicted expert testimony is not binding on a jury, if its factual basis and its reasoning are wanting.
Rather, it erects an absolute bar prohibiting use of one's voluntary ingestion of intoxicants as the sole basis for an insanity defense, regardless whether the substances caused organic [brain] damage or a settled mental disorder which persists after the immediate effects of the intoxicant have worn off.'" (People v. McCarrick (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 227, 247; see also People v. Robinson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 421, 427 [discussing former § 25.5 before it was renumbered § 29.8].) However, "[w]here the mental disease or defect is caused in part by an addiction or abuse of alcohol" a legal insanity defense is still available "depending on whether the defendant proves that it was his mental disease or defect that caused him to be unable to tell right from wrong."
(Id. at 957.) "'[E]xpert testimony, even if uncontradicted, is not binding on the trier of fact, and may be rejected . . . .'" (People v. McCarrick (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 227, 247 (McCarrick), italics omitted.) 2. Analysis
Rather, it erects an absolute bar prohibiting use of one's voluntary ingestion of intoxicants as the sole basis for an insanity defense, regardless whether the substances caused organic [brain] damage or a settled mental disorder which persists after the immediate effects of the intoxicant have worn off.' " (People v. McCarrick (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 227, 247 (McCarrick), italics added.) However, "[w]here the mental disease or defect is caused in part by an addiction or abuse of alcohol" a legal insanity defense is still available "depending on whether the defendant proves that it was his mental disease or defect that caused him to be unable to tell right from wrong."