People of the State of New York v Tasheonia M. Hills
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law — affirmative defense of lack of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect (insanity).
A Oneida County jury convicted defendant of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [intentional murder]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (§ 265.01 [2] [possessing a dangerous or deadly instrument or weapon with intent to use it unlawfully against another]), rejecting the affirmative defense under Penal Law § 40.15 [affirmative defense that, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate the nature and consequences of the conduct or that it was wrong].
Nothing; the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction and sentence.
The jury was entitled to credit the People’s expert, who opined defendant had no psychotic symptoms and knew her conduct was wrong, over defense experts; the expert testimony for the People was not seriously flawed, and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The sentence was also upheld as not unduly harsh or severe, despite a dissent urging reduction.
Background
Defendant repeatedly stabbed her mother, causing death. At trial, defendant asserted the affirmative defense of lack of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect (Penal Law § 40.15), presenting two experts who opined she lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate the nature and consequences of her actions. The People’s expert disagreed, attributing the offense to borderline personality disorder and anger toward the victim, and pointed to defendant’s post-crime behavior and statements, including an apology upon returning to the scene, as evidence she knew her conduct was wrong. The jury rejected the affirmative defense and convicted defendant of intentional murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and fourth-degree weapon possession (Penal Law § 265.01 [2]).
Lower Court Decision
Judgment of conviction entered February 11, 2019 (Oneida County Court) upon a jury verdict finding defendant guilty of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (§ 265.01 [2]); the jury rejected the § 40.15 affirmative defense.
Appellate Division Reversal
Affirmed. Viewing the evidence in light of the elements as charged, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence; the jury could resolve conflicting expert testimony and credit the People’s expert. The court also held the sentence was not unduly harsh or severe. Ogden, J., dissented only as to sentence, advocating a reduction to 15 years to life under Penal Law §§ 70.00 [2] [a]; [3] [a] [i] [indeterminate sentencing ranges for class A-I felonies, including murder in the second degree].
Legal Significance
Conflicting expert testimony on criminal responsibility under Penal Law § 40.15 is for the jury to resolve, and absent a serious flaw in the People’s expert, a jury’s rejection of the insanity defense will generally be sustained on weight-of-the-evidence review. The decision also reflects deference to the trial court’s sentencing where mitigation based on mental health is argued but not found to render the sentence unduly harsh, while acknowledging that a dissent may invoke interest-of-justice authority to reduce a sentence.
On an insanity defense, the jury may credit the People’s non-psychosis diagnosis and evidence of consciousness of wrongdoing over defense experts, and such a verdict will be upheld on weight review absent a serious flaw in the People’s proof; sentencing will be sustained unless shown unduly harsh, though appellate courts retain interest-of-justice power to reduce.