R. v. J.M. (No. 2), (1995) 134 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 161 (NFPC)

• Judge: LeBlanc, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 19, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1995), 134 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 161 (NFPC)

R. v. J.M. (1995), 134 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 161 (NFPC);

    417 A.P.R. 161

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen v. J.M., a young person

Indexed As: R. v. J.M. (No. 2)

Newfoundland Provincial Court

District of Wabush

LeBlanc, P.C.J.

September 19, 1995.

Summary:

A 12 year old girl was charged with the attempted murder of her mother, contrary to s. 239 of the Criminal Code.

The Newfoundland Provincial Court found the girl not guilty of attempted murder, but guilty of the included offence of unlawfully causing bodily harm.

Criminal Law - Topic 31

Mens rea or intention - Abandonment of - A 12 year old girl entered a kitchen with a knife and approached her mother with the admitted intent of killing her - The girl struck the mother three times in the back, leaving only small puncture wounds - The girl claimed she changed her mind when she struck the blows, no longer intending to kill her - A forensic expert testified that one of three possibilities was that the girl did something to limit pen­etration of the knife, which was consistent with her claim that she abandoned her intent to kill - The Newfoundland Provin­cial Court held that the Crown failed to prove the mens rea for attempted murder - The actus reus commenced when the first blow was struck - Everything done previ­ously was merely preparation - The Crown failed to prove that the girl still had the subjective intent to kill when the blows were struck - The court found the girl guilty of the included offence of unlawful­ly causing bodily harm.

Criminal Law - Topic 38.1

Mens rea or intention - Diminished re­sponsibility theory - The Newfoundland Provincial Court discussed whether Cana­dian law recognized a diminished respon­sibility theory, where a mental illness falling short of insanity could be con­sidered in determining whether an accused had the requisite intent for an offence - The court stated that "there is some ques­tion as to whether our law recognizes a diminished responsibility doctrine" - See paragraphs 27 to 30.

Criminal Law - Topic 1257

Attempted murder - Elements - Intention - [See Criminal Law - Topic 31 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2625

Attempts - Intention - [See Criminal Law - Topic 31 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2625

Attempts - Intention - The Newfoundland Provincial Court stated that the requisite intent for a charge of attempted murder was the specific intent to kill - See para­graph 24.

Criminal Law - Topic 2627

Attempts - What constitute - The New­foundland Provincial Court stated that "whether the actions of an accused amount to mere preparation to commit an offence or to an attempt to commit that offence is a question of law" - See paragraph 47.

Evidence - Topic 7010

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - Admissibility of information used to sup­port opinion - The Newfoundland Provin­cial Court stated that where the factual basis for an expert's opinion was based on a mixture of admissible and inadmissible evidence, the court must consider the amount and quality of the admissible evidence in determining the weight to be given to the expert's opinion - See para­graph 34.

Evidence - Topic 7016

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - Admissibility v. weight - [See Evidence - Topic 7010 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Ancio, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 225; 52 N.R. 161; 2 O.A.C. 124; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 39 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Lechasseur (1977), 38 C.C.C.(2d) 319 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Meloche (1975), 34 C.C.C.(2d) 184 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Baltzer (1974), 10 N.S.R.(2d) 561; 2 A.P.R. 561; 27 C.C.C.(2d) 118 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Hilton (1977), 34 C.C.C.(2d) 206 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Hem (1989), 72 C.R.(3d) 233 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. LeBlanc (1991), 4 C.R.(4th) 98 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Chartrand (1975), 8 N.R. 503; 26 C.C.C.(2d) 417 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Wright (1979), 16 A.R. 474; 48 C.C.C.(2d) 334 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Fowler (1984), 48 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 175; 142 A.P.R. 175 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Rabey (1977), 37 C.C.C.(2d) 461 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Chard (1971), 56 Cr. App. R. 268 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Rabey (1980), 32 N.R. 451; 15 C.R.(3d) 225 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30; [1983] 1 W.W.R. 251; 39 B.C.L.R. 201; 138 D.L.R.(3d) 202; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 394; 29 C.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 76 C.R.(3d) 329; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 33].

Henderson v. The King (1948), 5 C.R. 112 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Rump (1929), 51 C.C.C. 236 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Deutsch (1986), 68 N.R. 321; 18 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.R.(3d) 305 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Cline (1956), 24 C.R. 58 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Cooper (1993), 146 N.R. 367; 103 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 209; 326 A.P.R. 209; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Simpson (No. 2) (1981), 20 C.R.(3d) 36 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Thompson (J.E.) (1994), 48 B.C.A.C. 65; 78 W.A.C. 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. DeSousa (1992), 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109; 15 C.R.(4th) 66 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 269 [para. 58].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ewaschuk, E.G., Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada (2nd Ed.), p. 22-9 [para. 30].

Counsel:

Harold Porter, for the Crown;

Edward Conway, for J.M.

This case was heard before LeBlanc, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on September 19, 1995.