People v. Amarillo

• Decision Date: 14 July 2021
• Docket Number: 2017–06914,Ind. No. 969/14
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Carlos AMARILLO, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

196 A.D.3d 592
147 N.Y.S.3d 446 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Carlos AMARILLO, appellant.

2017–06914
Ind. No. 969/14

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—May 3, 2021
July 14, 2021

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Dina Zloczower of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill and Hannah X. Scotti of counsel), for respondent.

HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Michael Aloise, J.), rendered July 6, 2017, convicting him of murder in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was charged, inter alia, with two counts of murder in the first degree in connection with the killing of his girlfriend and her daughter. At trial, the defendant asserted the affirmative defense of lack of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect ( Penal Law § 40.15 ). The jury, implicitly rejecting the affirmative defense, convicted the defendant of both counts of murder in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and endangering the welfare of a child.

"In order to establish a lack of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect, a defendant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that, at the time the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he or she lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either (1) the nature and consequences of such conduct, or (2) that such conduct was wrong" ( People v. Spratley, 159 A.D.3d 725, 730, 71 N.Y.S.3d 582 ; see Penal Law § 40.15 ). "Where conflicting expert testimony is presented, the question [of] whether the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the commission of the crime is for the fact finder, who may accept or reject the...