R. v. Belyea, (1991) 121 N.B.R.(2d) 164 (PC)

JudgeBrien, P.C.J.
CourtProvincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
Case DateJune 26, 1991
JurisdictionNew Brunswick
Citations(1991), 121 N.B.R.(2d) 164 (PC)

R. v. Belyea (1991), 121 N.B.R.(2d) 164 (PC);

    121 R.N.-B.(2e) 164; 304 A.P.R. 164

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

R. v. Anthony Belyea

Indexed As: R. v. Belyea

New Brunswick Provincial Court

Brien, P.C.J.

June 26, 1991.

Summary:

The accused was charged with sexual assault. The accused raised the defences of automatism and drunkenness.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court found the accused guilty.

Criminal Law - Topic 33

Mens rea or intention - Specific intent offences v. general intent offences - [See Criminal Law - Topic 669 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 103

Automatism - The New Brunswick Pro­vincial Court stated that the defence of automatism was not available where based on self-induced intoxication - See para­graphs 19 to 26.

Criminal Law - Topic 669

Sexual offences - Sexual assault - Inten­tion or mens rea - Intoxication - An accused charged with sexual assault raised the defence of drunkenness - The New Brunswick Provincial Court stated that drunkenness was a defence to specific intent offences, but not offences of general intent like sexual assault - The accused relied on authorities permitting intoxication as a defence to general intent offences where the intoxication was so extreme as to cause an absence of awareness akin to a state of insanity or automatism - The court, assuming the authorities to be cor­rect, held that the evidence did not support a finding that the accused's intoxication was "so extreme" - See paragraphs 27 to 47.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Szymusiak (1972), 30 D.L.R.(3d) 602 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Bleta v. R., [1964] S.C.R. 561, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Rabey, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 513; 32 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Wasserman (1986), 17 W.C.B. 310, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Oakley (1986), 13 O.A.C. 141; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 351 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Revelle, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 576; 39 N.R. 485, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Hayward, [1969] 3 All E.R. 412, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Hatridge (1966), 48 D.L.R.(2d) 389 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Pitre (1971), 3 C.C.C.(2d) 380 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Joamie (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 108, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Leary (1977), 13 N.R. 592; 33 C.C.C.(2d) 472 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Bernard (1988), 90 N.R. 321; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Charest (1990), 28 Q.A.C. 258; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 312 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Counsel:

Catherine S. McNally, for the Crown;

David Lutz, for the accused.

This case was heard before Brien, P.C.J., of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 26, 1991.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT