R. v. Crouse (L.B.), 2002 NSPC 9
Judge | Crawford, P.C.J. |
Court | Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada) |
Case Date | November 17, 2000 |
Jurisdiction | Nova Scotia |
Citations | 2002 NSPC 9;(2000), 204 N.S.R.(2d) 108 (ProvCt) |
R. v. Crouse (L.B.) (2000), 204 N.S.R.(2d) 108 (ProvCt);
639 A.P.R. 108
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2002] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.050
Her Majesty The Queen v. Larry Beverley Crouse
(Nos. 988274; 988275; 988276; 988278; 988279; 988280; 2002 NSPC 9)
Indexed As: R. v. Crouse (L.B.)
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Crawford, P.C.J.
December 13, 2000.
Summary:
The accused was charged with a number of criminal offences respecting terrorizing behaviour towards an ex-girlfriend he was to have no contact with. The charges included uttering a death threat, impaired driving, breach of probation, breach of a recognizance, break and enter and mischief. The accused pleaded lack of criminal responsibility due to mental disorder (Criminal Code, s. 16).
The Nova Scotia Provincial Court acquitted the accused of uttering a death threat and impaired driving. Those offences were not proved by the Crown. Although the Crown proved the required elements for the remaining offences, the court found the accused not criminally responsible due to mental disorder.
Criminal Law - Topic 97
General principles - Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - What constitutes "insanity" (incl. "not criminally responsible due to mental disorder") - The accused was charged with a number of criminal offences respecting terrorizing behaviour towards an ex-girlfriend he was to have no contact with - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court found the accused not criminally responsible due to mental disorder (Criminal Code, s. 16) - The accused suffered a major depressive disorder with intense obsessive preoccupation with his ex-girlfriend - The court stated that "it was a case where his impulse or obsession impaired his ability to rationally assess, define or evaluate his behaviour in light of the relevant public standards of wrong to such an extent that he lacked the capacity for rationality. In other words ... the [accused's] mental disorder ... made him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his actions or of knowing that they were wrong." - See paragraphs 38 to 44.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Cooper, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1149; 31 N.R. 234; 110 D.L.R.(3d) 46; 18 C.R.(3d) 138; 51 C.C.C.(2d) 129; 4 L. Med. Q. 227; 1979 CarswellOnt 60, refd to. [para. 40].
R. v. Rooney (J.J.) (1995), 126 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 68; 393 A.P.R. 68; 1995 CarswellPEI 86 (P.E.I.S.C.), refd to. [para. 41].
R. v. Oommen (M.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 507; 168 N.R. 200; 155 A.R. 190; 73 W.A.C. 190; 19 Alta. L.R.(3d) 305; 30 C.R.(4th) 195; [1994] 7 W.W.R. 49; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 8; 1994 CarswellAlta 121, refd to. [para. 42].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 16 [para. 38].
Counsel:
Anthony Brown, for the Crown;
Alan Ferrier, for the accused.
This case was heard on November 17, 2000, at Bridgewater, N.S., before Crawford, P.C.J., of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on December 13, 2000.
To continue reading
Request your trial