R. v. Lesann (R.), (2014) 455 Sask.R. 1 (QB)

• Judge: Dawson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 10, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2014), 455 Sask.R. 1 (QB);2014 SKQB 332

R. v. Lesann (R.) (2014), 455 Sask.R. 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. OC.082

Her Majesty the Queen v. Richard Lesann

(QB CRIM No. 2108; 2014 SKQB 332)

Indexed As: R. v. Lesann (R.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Yorkton

Dawson, J.

October 10, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was charged with the second degree murder in the stabbing death of a woman that he had dated on and off for several years. He contended that he should be found not criminally responsible because, at the time of the stabbing, he was suffering from delusions that were a product of a serious mental illness, and he was thus unable to formulate the intention to kill the woman.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench found the accused not criminally responsible.

Criminal Law - Topic 97

General principles - Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - What constitutes "insanity" (incl. "not criminally responsible due to mental disorder") - Lesann was charged with second degree murder in the death of Kulaway, a woman he had dated on and off for several years - A few months before the murder, Lesann was hospitalized with advanced liver failure as a result of chronic alcoholism - While in the hospital, he had hallucinations, delusions and paranoia - He was not prescribed anti-psychotic medication - After being discharged, the delusions and hallucinations abated - In the weeks before the murder, many of Lesann's friends and acquaintances found that his behaviour was becoming increasingly bizarre - Lesann stabbed Kulaway four times in the chest and back while an acquaintance was present just a few feet away - He told the acquaintance not to look Kulaway in the eyes - He allegedly believed that he had to kill Kulaway because she was the devil or had the devil in her - Three experts subsequently diagnosed Lesann with a psychotic disorder and agreed that he was extremely delusional at the time of the murder - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench found Lesann not criminally responsible - Lesann was suffering from a mental disorder as defined in the Criminal Code - It was not a self-induced or transient mental state - Although Lesann appreciated the nature and quality of his actions in attacking Kulaway, he was incapable of knowing that his actions were morally wrong - He was quick to admit that he had killed, and made no attempt to escape or hide from responsibility - See paragraphs 215 to 270.

Criminal Law - Topic 107

General principles - Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - Evidence - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench discussed the test that had to be met in order to reach a verdict of not criminally responsible, as set out in s. 16 of the Criminal Code - The court stated that "there are two branches to the s. 16 test. The party who is asserting the defence must establish both requirements on the balance of probabilities. First, the accused must establish that he suffered from a disease of the mind at the time of the alleged offence. Second, the disease of the mind must have rendered the accused incapable of: i) appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission, or ii) knowing that the act or omission was wrong. The second stage of the test is disjunctive. An accused who did not appreciate the nature and quality of his or her actions or who did not know that such actions were wrong is entitled to a verdict of not criminally responsible. ... A results driven approach, including one that is based on the view that the accused would be better served by treatment in a mental hospital than by a term in prison, has no place in the s. 16 analysis." - See paragraphs 215 to 222.

Criminal Law - Topic 107

General principles - Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - Evidence - An accused charged with second degree murder argued that he should be found not criminally responsible because he was suffering from delusions at the time of the murder - Three experts diagnosed the accused with a psychotic disorder - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated "In determining whether or not the accused suffered from a mental disorder or disease of the mind, the courts have been clear that the question is a legal concept with a medical component and that while the opinions of the medical experts are relevant, they are not determinative. ... Here, both the psychiatrists and the psychologists agreed that the accused suffered from a disease of the mind at the time he killed [the victim]. No doubt their opinions strayed into the ultimate issue to be determined in this case, that is, whether the accused was not criminally responsible at the time of the killing. In the final analysis, it is for me to determine whether the specific legal question of what the accused was suffering from qualifies as a mental disorder." - See paragraphs 235 to 237.

Criminal Law - Topic 1263

Offences against person and reputation - Murder - General principles - Intention - [See Criminal Law - Topic 97 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Brown (R.I.), [2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. 871; 2006 BCSC 1731, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. David (D.) (2002), 164 O.A.C. 61; 169 C.C.C.(3d) 165 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. McClenaghan (M.A.) (2008), 437 A.R. 247; 433 W.A.C. 247; 2008 ABCA 7, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. McCotter (W.J.) (2012), 315 B.C.A.C. 290; 535 W.A.C. 290; 287 C.C.C.(3d) 423; 2012 BCCA 54, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Godin (C.) (2014), 417 N.B.R.(2d) 319; 1086 A.P.R. 319; 2014 NBQB 60, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun (T.), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 575; 423 N.R. 48; 2011 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Woodward (B.D.), [2009] O.A.C. Uned. 610; 2009 ONCA 911, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. I.E.M. (2003), 169 O.A.C. 240; 173 C.C.C.(3d) 515 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Despres (G.A.) (2008), 331 N.B.R.(2d) 299; 849 A.P.R. 299; 2008 NBQB 99, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Race (G.D.) (2014), 339 N.S.R.(2d) 351; 1073 A.P.R. 351; 2014 NSSC 6, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Brooks (B.J.) (2006), 274 Sask.R. 195; 2006 SKQB 2, refd to. [para. 158].

R. v. Cooper, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1149; 31 N.R. 234, refd to. [para. 233].

R. v. Simpson (1977), 77 D.L.R.(3d) 507 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 235].

R. v. Oakley (1986), 13 O.A.C. 141; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 351 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 238].

R. v. Rabey (1977), 79 D.L.R.(3d) 414 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 244].

R. v. Lepage (D.L.) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 241; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 152 D.L.R.(4th) 318 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 245].

R. v. Kjeldsen, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 617; 39 N.R. 376; 34 A.R. 576, refd to. [para. 247].

R. v. Landry, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 99; 119 N.R. 293; 34 Q.A.C. 81; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 117, refd to. [para. 248].

R. v. Paul (D.J.) (2011), 299 B.C.A.C. 85; 508 W.A.C. 85; 272 C.C.C.(3d) 211; 2011 BCCA 46, refd to. [para. 249].

R. v. Oommen (M.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 507; 168 N.R. 200; 155 A.R. 190; 73 W.A.C. 190, refd to. [para. 254].

R. v. Ratti, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 68; 120 N.R. 91; 44 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 257].

R. v. Szostak (H.) (2012), 294 O.A.C. 147; 289 C.C.C.(3d) 249; 2012 ONCA 503, refd to. [para. 259].

R. v. Ross (D.) (2009), 246 O.A.C. 201; 2009 ONCA 149, refd to. [para. 260].

R. v. Guidolin (D.) (2011), 280 O.A.C. 387; 2011 ONCA 264, refd to. [para. 261].

R. v. Blanchard (B.A.) (2011), 370 Sask.R. 83; 2011 SKQB 195, refd to. [para. 262].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 16 [para. 9].

Counsel:

Daryl Bode, for the Crown;

David Rusnak, for Richard Lesann.

This matter was heard before Dawson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Yorkton, who delivered the following judgment on October 10, 2014.