R. v. Crocker (A.), (2015) 370 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 348 (NLPC)

• Judge: Gorman, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 24, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2015), 370 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 348 (NLPC);2015 NLPC 1313

R. v. Crocker (A.) (2015), 370 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 348 (NLPC);

    1153 A.P.R. 348

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. AU.037

Her Majesty the Queen v. Amanda Crocker

(2015 NLPC 1313A00474)

Indexed As: R. v. Crocker (A.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court

Gorman, P.C.J.

August 26, 2015.

Summary:

Crocker was charged with theft of a bottle of vodka from a convenience store.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court found Crocker guilty of the charge.

Criminal Law - Topic 1640

Offences against property - Theft - General principles - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1645 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1641

Offences against property - Theft - Defined - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1645 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1645

Offences against property - Theft - Elements - Intention or mens rea - Crocker entered a convenience store and placed a bottle of vodka inside her blouse - She picked up a second bottle of vodka, walked to the cashier and paid for it - Crocker went to the washroom and then left the store - She did not pay for the bottle of vodka she had placed inside her blouse - She was charged with theft - Crocker testified - She indicated that a store employee was "staring at her" - She said that this "aggravated the hell right out of me" and that she decided to give the employee "something to stare at" - Crocker said that she picked up a bottle of vodka and placed it inside her blouse and that she felt the employee had seen this occur - Crocker testified that she picked up a second bottle of vodka, walked to the cashier and paid for it - She then went into the washroom - She indicated that she took the bottle of vodka from inside her blouse and placed it on the washroom floor - She then left the washroom and walked out of the store - She said that she expected that the store's employee would stop her, but he did not - Defence counsel argued that Crocker intended to leave the bottle of vodka in the washroom and the Crown had not proven the mens rea of the offence of theft - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court found Crocker guilty - The court did not believe Crocker's evidence, nor did it cause the court to have a reasonable doubt - The court concluded that Crocker intended to steal one of the bottles of vodka and that she concealed that bottle in her blouse and failed to pay for it at the cashier for that purpose - Even if Crocker placed the bottle she had hidden in her blouse in the washroom before she left the store, that would be immaterial because the theft was complete at that time - Crocker intended to deprive the store of its property and did so by placing the bottle of vodka into her blouse and leaving the store with it - The Crown had proven that Crocker committed the actus reus of the offence of theft while having the necessary mens rea.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Nikolovski (A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197; 204 N.R. 333; 96 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Bulldog (D.W.), [2015] A.R. TBEd. JL.100; 2015 ABCA 251, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Cluett, [2006] N.J. No. 353 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. McLean (J.A.) (1995), 177 A.R. 76 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. R.D. (1985), 59 A.R. 215 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Squires, [2005] N.J. No. 117 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Howson, [1966] 3 C.C.C. 348 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Scalbania (N.M.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 995; 220 N.R. 349; 99 B.C.A.C. 81; 162 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Dorosh (G.) (2004), 241 Sask.R. 180; 313 W.A.C. 180; 183 C.C.C.(3d) 224 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. J.K. (2015), 365 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 53; 1138 A.P.R. 53; 2015 NLCA 14, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. J.M.H., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 197; 421 N.R. 76; 283 O.A.C. 379; 2011 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. S.T. (2015), 319 Man.R.(2d) 22; 638 W.A.C. 22; 2015 MBCA 36, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. M.D.R., [2015] O.A.C. Uned. 283; 2015 ONCA 323, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Nesbitt, [1972] O.J. No. 17 (C.A.), consd. [para. 25].

R. v. Kessell, [1991] O.J. No. 2413 (Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 25].

R. v. Dzik, [2000] O.J. No. 178 (C.J.), consd. [para. 25].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 322(1)(a) [para. 13].

Counsel:

L. St. Croix, for Her Majesty the Queen;

J. MacDonald, for Ms. Crocker.

This matter was heard on July 2 and August 24, 2015, at Corner Brook, N.L., before Gorman, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on August 26, 2015.