CRM 2300 Chapter 8

False

No as the person is not free at the end of the trial, but instead placed into an institution

the defendant

they are sent to an institution

necessity and duress

automatism and intoxication

Drugged, raped and killed victim Put body parts in envelopes and sent them to people then fled the country He was caught and as soon as the popo caught him he said he wanted to raise the defence of NCRMD if he is successful with claiming the NCRMD he could be released in 5 years, instead of being charged w/1st degree and sentenced to 25 years to life which he was, diagnosed w/schizophrenia

Cannibalism, thought devil was on the bus, slit throat, 23 year old victim, history of schizophrenia stopped taking medication around 2 months before the incident, suffered from psychosis (losing touch w/reality, literally thought the man was satan) He committed the act but the element of mens rea was lacking (spent 8-10 years in psychiatric facility, normally when they are taking their meds they do well ) The burden (the party who raises the defense) (have to establish the evidentiary burden of proof) Standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt OR balance of probability) When it comes to all defenses whoever raised the defense must shoulder the defense (must satisfy the requirement of the defense) Majority of the time the defendant (accused) shoulders the defense When the trial starts the defense team brings in evidence to coin to the fact that the defendant was suffering from a psychotic episode The issue of fitness to stand trial: section 2 of the CCC (different than NCRMD, before court cases, interviewed, asked if they understand what they were charged with… → Procedure of the trial) (if they say yes they understand then they are fit to stand trial) Beheaded victim

True

False

when the judge based on evidence determined if the accused had disease of the mind at the moment of the crime

jury deliberates, giving all the facts in the case, if all the evidence connects to the fact that the accused did suffer from disease of mind (jury and judge or judge alone)

SCC elaborated on the meaning of “appreciate” in case of Barnier (1980) Killed a woman and demanded to talk to the Prime Minister Stopped going to work cuz he claimed he was not feeling well, walking into the office and killed the secretary (shot her), held the DG hostage and demanded to talk to the PM, asked to be wired money most of what he said was not making sense He suffered from severe delusion Crown argued that “appreciate” means “know” Trial judge decision… found him guilty cuz he knew what he was doing B.C. court of Appeal… allowed his appeal and substituted a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity Know: bare awareness, the act of receiving information w/o more

Second stage in a mental process requiring the analysis of knowledge An ability to perceive the consequences, impact, and result of a physical act (SCC, in Cooper 1980)

“The mental disorder rendered the accused incapable of knowing that the act or omission was wrong”

“a state of impaired consciousness, in which an individual, though capable of action, has no voluntary control over action. Lacks actus reus (mens rea exists)

Caused by “normal” condition such as hypnosis (which is not considered by the courts to be the result of mental disorder) Normal: not a result of mental disorder External trauma triggers it such as a blow to the head Induced by alcohol and other drugs involuntarily Self induced by alcohol and other drugs voluntarily Mental disorder caused it (or “disease of the mind”) Psychological blow automatism (added later)

At night drove to parents in laws (evidence indicated that he had fallen asleep and then driven around 23 kilometers to his in laws) and went right in the kitchen and the mother in law came down, parks stabs the father in law, the mother in law goes up stairs and he goes upstairs and stabbed her. He later goes to the car and as he was driving he said he woke up and saw the blood all over himself, goes to police station and tells them he did something but didn’t know what he did, was charged with murder and then claimed the defence of normal state autonomism, he said he had a history of sleepwalking, he would get up and walk and they even had an expert come to the court, they said yes. Automatism triggered by external trauma Crown could not prove actus reus (not acting voluntary) After stone (1999) parks case is no longer a precedent for acquitting an accused person in similar situation

Automatism voluntarily self-induced by alcohol or other drugs Charter challenge What if accused establishes “i was acting involuntarily at the specific moment i committed the conduct: Driving offences Actus reus: voluntary consumption of alcohol/drugs ro point impairment Daviault(1994) charged with sexual assault Drank all his life, went to his lady friends house who was paralysed from the waist down, he brought Brandy, they drank, he passed out but normally doesn’t, the friend goes to sleep in her room ,he wakes up to find him raping her, he is completly not talking or acting, open eyes, shes screaming, she calls the police, he is up and aware and is taken to the station, they wanted to get his blood test and breathylizer, he had more alcohol in his body then blood, had 450 mlg of alcohol. Medical expert wanted to test him. He was in a state of autonomism because of the level. Trial did not find him guilty bc lawyer brought in autonomism. Court of appeal found him guilty Scc found him not guilty. Voluntariness of the act is missing so there is no actus reus Intoxication produces a state of mind “akin to automatism or insanity”. Amendment to the Criminal; Code, section 33.1 Defence of intoxication is a partial defence and is a common law defence

Trial judge decision: intoxication not self-induced hence section 33.1 does not apply to him Gets invited to a party at an appointment complex, women and men, he was socializing with the guests ans at ome point said he was bored and wanted to leave. Host said that they can give him a caffeine pill to stay awake, he took it and as soon as he took it he got very loud, obnxoious, got kicked out of the party. He enters another appartment in the same floor, a father and daughter\ter are living there, he starts breaking their stuff and pinning the daughter to the wall saying something like he will rape her, the father comes to protect the daughter, he throws punches at the father, when police comes, its clear he isn’t coherenet, saying random stuff, police determined he was not in the right state of mind. His caffeine pill ended up being a drug. The host said he asked for drugs not caffeine pills.
Court of appeal decision: the test to decide whether an accused persons state of automatism//extreme intoxication was “self-induced” within the meaning of S.33.1

Accused was charged w/sexual assault of a stranger Both the victim and Luedecke had been at a party and fallen asleep in close proximity to each other Victim woke up at 5 am and found him engaging in an act of sexual intercourse with her, she screamed and pushed him away He raised himself onto his knees and according to the victim looked “dazed” and “completely incoherent” (also like someone who had been “woken up out of a sound sleep” He claimed he was suffering with sexomnia Trial judge decision… acted involuntarily and that parasomnia was not a disease of the mind → Acquitted based on non-mental disorder automatism Ontario court of appeal ordered a new trail Sexomnia should be considered a “disease of the mind” (public safety)

Unhappy marriage, 18 years, he said they always found, she belittled him alot, he said at one point he wanted he wanted to rekindle an old love. They are in a hunting trip, they fight, she calls him names but she made fun of how he sucks in bed and went on and on. At that moment he pulled the car and said her words were an external factor that caused him to go to a state of dissociation. He goes and stabs his wife 47 times. He ended up driving around for a few hours and then called the police. He was charged with murder of his wife. Use the average normal person test, it has to be a very shocking external factor that has to cause you to go into dissociation. He was found guilty “Dissociative” state: disease of the mind? Supreme court of Canada: “an extremely shocking trigger” they felt bad for him and charged him with manslaughter instead of second degree.