R. v. Alexander (J.A.N.), 2015 BCCA 484

• Judge: Bauman, C.J.B.C., Chiasson and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: November 27, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2015 BCCA 484;(2015), 380 B.C.A.C. 35 (CA)

R. v. Alexander (J.A.N.) (2015), 380 B.C.A.C. 35 (CA);

    655 W.A.C. 35

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. NO.043

Regina (respondent) v. Jo Anne Nancy Alexander (appellant)

(CA42014; 2015 BCCA 484)

Indexed As: R. v. Alexander (J.A.N.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Bauman, C.J.B.C., Chiasson and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A.

November 27, 2015.

Summary:

The accused admittedly killed her husband with repeated blows to his head with a baseball bat or hammer, but claimed that her actions were involuntary, as she was in a transitory dissociative state which impaired her capacity to form intent. The accused sought to have the jury instructed on both mental and non-mental disorder automatism. The trial judge instructed the jury only on non-mental disorder automatism, finding that there was no air of reality to mental disorder automatism. The jury convicted the accused of second degree murder. The accused appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Having found an air of reality to the defence of automatism, the trial judge erred in going on to consider whether there was an air of reality to mental disorder automatism and non-mental disorder automatism. The judge also erred in finding that transitory abnormal mental states could never constitute a mental disorder. After finding an air of reality to automatism, the trial judge should have determined whether her automatism was mental or non-mental. However, the court applied the curative provisions of s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code to dismiss the appeal notwithstanding the errors. The errors were harmless where the trial judge was correct not to leave mental disorder automatism with the jury. The jury charge, crafted with the assistance of both counsel, was adequate. The jury was properly instructed to be skeptical of non-mental disorder automatism, but that it was ultimately up to them to determine credibility.

Criminal Law - Topic 103

Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - Automatism or noninsane automatism - See paragraphs 26 to 116.

Criminal Law - Topic 4386

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Judge's duty to determine if defence available on evidence - See paragraphs 26 to 116.

Criminal Law - Topic 5045

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - What constitutes a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice - See paragraphs 26 to 116.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Stone (B.T.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290; 239 N.R. 201; 123 B.C.A.C. 1; 201 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Luedecke (J.) (2008), 269 O.A.C. 1; 2008 ONCA 716, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Fontaine (J.) (2004), 318 N.R. 371; 2004 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. S.H. (2014), 319 O.A.C. 58; 2014 ONCA 303, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun (T.) (2011), 423 N.R. 48; 2011 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Cinous (J.) (2002), 285 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Rabey (1977), 37 C.C.C.(2d) 461 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1980] 2 S.C.R. 513; 32 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Van (D.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 716; 388 N.R. 200; 251 O.A.C. 295; 2009 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Khan (M.A.) (2001), 279 N.R. 79; 160 Man.R.(2d) 161; 262 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 86, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Ansari (S.), [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. F09; 2008 BCSC 1517, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Revelle (1979), 39 N.R. 486; 48 C.C.C.(2d) 267 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1981] 1 S.C.R. 576; 39 N.R. 485, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Sekhon (A.S.) (2014), 454 N.R. 41; 351 B.C.A.C. 1; 599 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 15, dist. [para. 97].

R. v. Marquard (D.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 81; 66 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Araya (N.) (2015), 468 N.R. 114; 329 O.A.C. 1; 2015 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Jacquard (C.O.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314; 207 N.R. 246; 157 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 462 A.P.R. 161, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Purchase (R.D.) (2015), 372 B.C.A.C. 182; 640 W.A.C. 182; 2015 BCCA 211, refd to. [para. 112].

Counsel:

T. Paisana and M. Shah, for the appellant;

D. Layton, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 8, 2015, at Vancouver, B.C., before Bauman, C.J.B.C., Chiasson and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On November 27, 2015, Stromberg-Stein, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.