R. v. Burkholder, (1977) 2 A.R. 119 (CA)

• Judge: Clement, Prowse and Moir, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: January 21, 1977
• Citations: (1977), 2 A.R. 119 (CA)

R. v. Burkholder (1977), 2 A.R. 119 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Burkholder

Indexed As: R. v. Burkholder

Alberta Supreme Court

Appellate Division

Clement, Prowse and Moir, JJ.A.

January 21, 1977.

Summary:

This case arose out of the charge of administering a destructive or noxious thing contrary to s. 229 of the Criminal Code. The accused administered novocane, containing procane, to a woman by means of a hypodermic syringe. The trial court convicted the accused.

On appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed and the conviction of the accused was quashed. The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that the Crown failed to prove that the accused intended to cause bodily harm to the complainant. The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that intent could have been inferred if the Crown had proved that the complainant suffered bodily harm or that the amount of the substance administered would have caused bodily harm in the normal course of events - see paragraph 41.

Criminal Law - Topic 1331

Offences against the person - Administering a noxious thing - Criminal Code, s. 229 - Elements of offence - The Alberta Court of Appeal listed the elements of an offence under s. 229(a) of the Criminal Code - See paragraph 35.

Criminal Law - Topic 1332

Offences against the person - Administering a noxious thing - Criminal Code, s. 229 - Intent or mens rea - The accused administered novocane, containing procane, to a woman by means of a hypodermic syringe - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that intent could have been inferred if the Crown had proved that the complainant suffered bodily harm or that the amount administered would have caused bodily harm in the normal course of events - See paragraph 41 - The Alberta Court of Appeal acquitted the accused - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that the Crown failed to prove that the accused intended to cause bodily harm to the complainant.

Criminal Law - Topic 1332

Offences against the person - The Alberta Administering a noxious thing - Intent or mens rea required - Criminal Code, s. 229 - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that an accused charged under s. 229 must intend to aggrieve, cause bodily harm, or endanger the life of the person to whom the noxious thing is administered - See paragraph 31 - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that it is not necessary for the Crown to prove that the accused knew the substance was noxious - See paragraph 32.

Words and Phrases

Noxious - The Alberta Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "noxious" as found in s. 229 of the Criminal Code - See paragraphs 24 and 25.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Cunningham, [1957] A.E.R. 412; 2 Q.B. 396, refd to. [para. 17].

Queen v. Cato, Morris and Dudley (1976), 62 Cr. App. R. 41, refd to. [para. 17].

Queen v. Hennah (1877), 3 Cox C.C. 546, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Wilkins (1861), Le & Cn 89, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Steane, 32 Cr. App. R. 61, folld. [para. 33].

R. v. Donovan, [1932] 2 K.B. 498, folld. [para. 38].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 229 [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Shorter Oxford Dictionary (4th Ed.) [para. 24].

Counsel:

R.I. Tkachuk, for the respondent;

J.C. Robb, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard by the Alberta Court of Appeal at Edmonton, Alberta. The judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal was delivered by PROWSE, J.A., on January 21, 1977.