People v. McGehee
246 Cal. App. 4th 1190
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Dawson McGehee stabbed his mother ten times; eight wounds were independently fatal. He was tried on murder with a bifurcated trial (guilt then sanity) after pleading not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.
- Guilt-phase evidence: defendant’s jacket had the victim’s blood; no sign of forced entry; defendant was the only family member home; odd phone calls and a multi-hour trip after the likely time of death that delayed discovery of the body.
- Mental‑state evidence: defense presented evidence of prior hallucinations/delusions (demons, religious visions), expert testimony diagnosing schizophrenia (Dr. Weiss), friends’ testimony about demon claims, and earlier psychiatric records; prosecution’s experts disputed psychosis.
- At guilt phase the court instructed with CALCRIM No. 362 (consciousness of guilt) and CALCRIM No. 3428 (limited use of mental‑illness evidence); defendant did not object to those instructions below.
- The jury convicted of second‑degree murder and found defendant legally sane in the sanity phase; defendant appealed raising instructional, evidentiary, prosecutorial‑misconduct, and related ineffective‑assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Combination of CALCRIM No. 362 (consciousness of guilt) with CALCRIM No. 3428 (limited use of mental‑illness evidence) | Instructions were proper and did not violate due process | Court should have modified No. 3428 to permit jury to consider mental‑illness evidence when deciding whether post‑offense false statements were knowingly false (and thus probative of consciousness of guilt); giving both instructions as is created an unfair permissive inference | There was instructional error but defendant forfeited by not objecting; error was harmless on the record and did not violate due process; claim forfeited |
| Failure to instruct on involuntary manslaughter as lesser included offense | No instruction required because evidence supports murder with malice | Evidence of delusions could mean defendant intended to kill a demon, not a human, so involuntary manslaughter instruction was required | No. Purely delusional beliefs raising an insanity defense must be reserved for sanity phase; substantial evidence supported intent to kill a human; no sua sponte instruction required |
| Admission/exclusion of out‑of‑court statements about demons (hearsay/state of mind) | Statements admitted only as state‑of‑mind hearsay; exclusion of some similar statements was erroneous | Statements such as "demons are coming after me" are non‑hearsay circumstantial evidence of state of mind and properly admitted for that purpose; any erroneous exclusions were harmless | Most challenged statements were properly treated as non‑hearsay circumstantial evidence of hallucinations; where the court erred in excluding statements, error was harmless |
| Modified CALCRIM No. 360 (expert reliance on out‑of‑court statements) | Modified instruction improperly prevented jurors from crediting trial testimony and some admissible party‑opponent admissions relied on by an expert | Modified instruction was erroneous in certain respects (should have excluded Dr. Yarbrough from the limitation; overstated which experts relied on which materials) but defense did not object | Forfeited by failure to object; errors were technical and harmless; no miscarriage of justice |
| Prosecutorial misconduct and failure to instruct on no‑adverse‑inference from silence | Prosecutor’s remarks improperly misstated circumstantial‑evidence law and indirectly commented on defendant’s silence; court’s omission of a requested no‑adverse‑inference instruction violated rights | Comments were within bounds of argument; any error was forfeited for failing to object; omission of instruction was inadvertent but harmless given the strong evidence | Claims forfeited or, alternatively, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; ineffective‑assistance claim fails for lack of prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Elmore, 59 Cal.4th 121 (2014) (explains limits on using delusion‑based self‑defense or intent arguments at guilt phase when defendant pleads insanity)
- People v. Wiidanen, 201 Cal.App.4th 526 (2011) (holding intoxication instruction should be modified when consciousness‑of‑guilt instruction is given because impairment may bear on whether post‑crime denials were knowingly false)
- People v. Rogers, 39 Cal.4th 826 (2006) (discusses when mental‑illness evidence can negate malice and the distinctions among murder, voluntary, and involuntary manslaughter)
- People v. Saille, 54 Cal.3d 1103 (1991) (on diminished capacity and limits post‑1981)
- People v. Anderson, 152 Cal.App.4th 919 (2007) (explains forfeiture of instructional error claims absent showing of prejudice/miscarriage of justice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) (prohibits prosecutorial comment on defendant’s silence)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional error)