People v. Gilbert

• Decision Date: 04 November 2021
• Docket Number: 109990
• Citation: 199 A.D.3d 1048,156 N.Y.S.3d 533
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sarra GILBERT, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

199 A.D.3d 1048
156 N.Y.S.3d 533

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Sarra GILBERT, Appellant.

109990

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

Calendar Date: September 15, 2021
Decided and Entered: November 4, 2021

156 N.Y.S.3d 535

John Ray, Miller Place, for appellant.

David J. Clegg, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Aarons and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Lynch, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered August 4, 2017, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of murder in the second degree.

On July 23, 2016, defendant invited her mother (hereinafter the victim) over to her residence, where defendant fatally stabbed her over 200 times. As a result, defendant was charged by indictment with murder in the second degree. During the ensuing jury trial, defendant raised the affirmative defense of lack of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect (see Penal Law § 40.15 ), emphasizing that she had a mental illness and, at the time of the killing, did not appreciate the nature and consequences of her conduct or that such conduct was wrong. The jury rejected the affirmative defense and convicted defendant

156 N.Y.S.3d 536

as charged. She was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life and appeals.

Defendant does not dispute that she killed the victim by stabbing her 227 times with a 15–inch knife, bludgeoning her with a fire extinguisher and spraying fire extinguisher foam into her mouth, thereby satisfying the actus reus components of murder in the second degree (see Penal Law § 125.25[1] ). The mens rea element of this crime was also established by defendant's trial testimony that she intended to kill the victim and the brutal nature of her conduct (see Penal Law §§ 15.05[1] ; 125.25[1]; People v. Steinberg, 79 N.Y.2d 673, 682, 584 N.Y.S.2d 770, 595 N.E.2d 845 [1992] ; People v. Terry, 196 A.D.3d 840, 842, 149 N.Y.S.3d 705 [2021], lvs denied 37 N.Y.3d 1027, 1030, 153 N.Y.S.3d 411, 175 N.E.3d 436 [2021]). The dispute focuses on whether the jury could, on the record before it, reasonably reject defendant's affirmative defense that she lacked criminal responsibility by virtue of her mental disease or defect (see Penal Law § 40.15 ).

Defendant contends that the jury improperly rejected her affirmative defense and, therefore, the verdict is legally insufficient and against the weight of the evidence. A defendant will be absolved of criminal liability under Penal Law § 40.15 if, "at the time of the [criminal] conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, [the defendant] lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either ... [t]he nature and consequences of such conduct[ ] or ... [t]hat such conduct was wrong" (see People v. Marlett, 191 A.D.3d 1183, 1185, 141 N.Y.S.3d 191 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 966, 148 N.Y.S.3d 776, 171 N.E.3d 252 [2021] ). The statute uses the term "know or appreciate" in a deliberate manner to "permit the defendant possessed of mere surface knowledge or cognition to be excused, and to require that he [or she] have some understanding of the legal and moral import of the conduct involved to be held criminally responsible" ( People v. Adams, 26 N.Y.2d 129, 135, 309 N.Y.S.2d 145, 257 N.E.2d 610 [1970] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], cert denied 399 U.S. 931, 90 S.Ct. 2262, 26 L.Ed.2d 800 [1970] ; see CJI2d[NY] Penal Law § 40.15 ). As an affirmative defense, the burden is on the defendant to prove these elements by a preponderance of the evidence (see People v. Kohl, 72 N.Y.2d 191, 193, 532 N.Y.S.2d 45, 527 N.E.2d 1182 [1988] ; People v. Marlett, 191 A.D.3d at 1185, 141 N.Y.S.3d 191 ). Even so, "placing this burden on the defendant does not relieve or transform the People's primary and constant burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, all the elements of the crimes charged, including all components of the applicable culpable mental state element" ( People v. Kohl, 72 N.Y.2d at 193–194, 532 N.Y.S.2d 45, 527 N.E.2d 1182 ). Where there is conflicting expert testimony, "the issue of a defendant's criminal responsibility is for the jury to resolve" ( People v. Demagall, 114 A.D.3d 189, 192, 978 N.Y.S.2d 416 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 1035, 993 N.Y.S.2d 249, 17 N.E.3d 504 [2014] ; see People v. Hadfield, 119 A.D.3d 1217, 1222, 990 N.Y.S.2d 683 [2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 989, 10 N.Y.S.3d 532, 32 N.E.3d 969 [2015] ), and "we will intervene only when there is a serious flaw in the testimony offered by the People's expert" ( People v. Demagall, 114 A.D.3d at 192, 978 N.Y.S.2d 416 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

With respect to the underlying incident, the evidence establishes that, on the afternoon of July 23, 2016, two police officers – Antonio John Bell and Alba Gonzalez – were dispatched to defendant's residence in response to a call from one of her sisters expressing concern. Upon arriving,

156 N.Y.S.3d 537

the officers encountered the victim's car in the driveway and knocked on the doors and windows of defendant's residence. No response was forthcoming. In the interim, defendant's family members arrived at the scene and her sister – Sherre – informed Bell that defendant had called her that morning and told her that she was hearing voices. The victim's boyfriend eventually opened one of the windows to defendant's residence and observed the victim's deceased body on the floor. Bell then kicked in the door and entered, where he encountered defendant walking toward him while smoking a cigarette. As reflected in the footage from Bell's body camera – which was played for the jury at trial – defendant immediately uttered, "I am under arrest." Bell testified that, when he inquired further, defendant stated in a soft voice, "I killed my mom,"¹ but later maintained that the victim was still alive.

The People also elicited testimony from Gonzalez regarding defendant's statements and demeanor following the killing. Gonzalez revealed that, upon entering defendant's residence, she and Bell placed defendant in handcuffs and ordered her to stand in the kitchen while they secured the crime scene. During that time, defendant informed Gonzalez that, prior to the killing, she had been hearing voices that referred to the victim as the "devil" and a "bad God," and that directed her to kill the victim. However, later during their interaction, defendant asked Gonzalez, "[S]he's still alive, right?" and stated, "[I]s this like a joke? I know something is going to happen. My mom is not dead. My mom is not dead." She also relayed to Gonzalez that she had not slept the night before because rain had fallen from the ceiling. The jury also heard testimony that, while speaking with Gonzalez, defendant asked that her family be moved away from the scene and mistook the chirp of a fire alarm battery for a voice.

After the crime scene was secured, defendant was arrested and taken to the police station, where she was read her Miranda rights. The People played for the jury a recorded interview of defendant's investigatory questioning while there. In response to a detective's question about whether defendant knew why she was being interrogated, defendant responded, "I murdered my mother." Defendant then recounted the circumstances precipitating the killing, explaining that she had asked the victim to come to her house that morning and, when the victim arrived, told her that she had been hearing voices. Defendant explained that she began "stabbing [the victim] to death" under the impression that she was the source of the voices, stating that she thought she "had to" in order to stop them and referring to the victim as a "bad God." Defendant also told detectives that she wanted to kill the victim when she called her that morning but did not think she had the "audacity" to do so. She confirmed that, at the time of the killing, she felt like stabbing the victim was the right thing to do, but "fe[lt] really bad" about it afterwards. As depicted in the video footage, defendant answered in the affirmative when detectives asked whether she was still hearing voices following the victim's death and agreed with them that, even if the voices had stopped, stabbing the victim "would still have been the wrong thing to do."

The People also called Stevie Nickole Smith, defendant's younger sister, to testify

156 N.Y.S.3d 538

as a fact witness. Smith indicated that defendant had a strained relationship with the victim, who had obtained custody of defendant's son following a February 2016 incident in which defendant drowned a puppy in front of the child. According to Smith, defendant was upset that the victim had obtained custody of the child and believed that monetary motivations influenced that decision. Smith also emphasized that the victim did not get along with defendant's former boyfriend. Smith also noted that defendant was not always medication compliant, had been in and out of psychiatric hospitals on numerous occasions, had assaulted nurses and residents during her hospital stays, and had attacked the victim and Sherre less...