R. v. Belyea, (1991) 121 N.B.R.(2d) 164 (PC)
Judge | Brien, P.C.J. |
Court | Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada) |
Case Date | June 26, 1991 |
Jurisdiction | New 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