People v. McCarrick
6 Cal. App. 5th 227
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Monica McCarrick stabbed and killed her three‑year‑old twin daughters and set a fire; she was convicted of two counts of first‑degree murder and related counts; jury later found her sane in a bifurcated sanity phase.
- Crime scene and communications showed violent, premeditated acts (sword, bodies used to block door, prior planning statements), but defendant and several witnesses reported paranoid delusions in the weeks before the killings.
- Defendant had a long history of methamphetamine and other substance use and prior psychiatric treatment; toxicology after the killings was negative but recent use was reported.
- Three defense experts (a psychologist and two psychiatrists) testified defendant suffered major depression / bipolar disorder with psychotic features and was delusional — each opined she could not understand moral/legal wrongfulness or nature/quality of her acts.
- Prosecution emphasized temporal overlap between drug use and delusions and pointed to defendant’s planning statements and communications during/after the offense to argue she knew the nature and wrongfulness of her acts.
- Trial court allowed evidence of "hallucinations" under CALCRIM No. 627 (to negate deliberation/premeditation) but did not modify the instruction to expressly reference delusions; jury convicted and found defendant sane; defendant appealed, challenging instructional rulings and sufficiency of evidence on sanity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (McCarrick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CALCRIM No. 627’s reference to "hallucinations" must be modified to include delusions when evidence shows delusional (non‑hallucinatory) thinking | Instruction was correct; evidence of hallucination was the relevant category and jury was properly instructed | Trial court should have modified CALCRIM No. 627 to mention delusions so jury could consider delusional beliefs in assessing premeditation; failure violated rights | Court affirmed: defendant forfeited by not requesting modification; record shows court/counsel treated "hallucinations" as encompassing delusions here; no reasonable likelihood jury was misled |
| Sufficiency of evidence to suport jury's sanity verdict (sanity phase) | Jury could reasonably reject experts’ opinions in light of evidence that delusions were caused or materially contributed by voluntary long‑term and recent drug use and by evidence of planning/awareness | Defense experts uniformly opined defendant was legally insane (could not know wrongfulness); that shows insufficiency to find sanity | Court affirmed: substantial evidence supported verdict — jury permissibly credited drug‑related explanations and conduct showing knowledge of nature/wrongfulness; unanimity of experts does not compel reversal |
| Adequacy of CALCRIM No. 3450 insanity instruction (phrasing "morally or legally wrong", scope, and listing of excluded conditions) | Instruction correctly stated law (includes "morally or legally wrong") and explained settled‑disease/drug‑caused conditions; paragraph listing excluded conditions was responsive to record | Instruction ambiguous ("or" vs "and"); failed to specify "very act" required; listing of adjustment disorder as insufficient was confusing | Court rejected challenges: defendant forfeited two of them; language reasonably read as correct legal standard and not misleading given instructions and record |
| Forfeiture / futility doctrine re: requesting instruction modification | Trial court and counsel treated delusions as within "hallucinations" — so no futility; defendant failed to request modification | Trial counsel could not be expected to request a modification after court had ruled narrowly; request would have been futile (so no forfeiture) | Court held defendant forfeited by not requesting modification; record does not support futility — court allowed evidence characterized as "hallucinations" (i.e., delusions) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Padilla, 103 Cal.App.4th 675 (Cal. Ct. App.) (hallucinations may be considered to negate premeditation/deliberation)
- People v. Mejia‑Lenares, 135 Cal.App.4th 1437 (Cal. Ct. App.) (delusional perceptions cannot be treated as true for unreasonable self‑defense or to negate malice)
- People v. Elmore, 59 Cal.4th 121 (Cal.) (adopting Mejia‑Lenares on limits of unreasonable self‑defense when threat is purely delusional)
- People v. Drew, 22 Cal.3d 333 (Cal.) (appellate review of sanity verdict: jury may reject expert unanimity; evaluate weight/reasoning of expert opinion)
- People v. Skinner, 39 Cal.3d 765 (Cal.) (statutory insanity test: nature and quality or right‑from‑wrong prongs)