R. v. R.M.C. and F.D.M., (1988) 53 Man.R.(2d) 297 (CA)

• Judge: Hall, O'Sullivan and Lyon, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: May 03, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1988), 53 Man.R.(2d) 297 (CA)

R. v. R.M.C. (1988), 53 Man.R.(2d) 297 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (informant/respondent) v. R.M.C. and F.D.M. (accused/appellants)

(Suit Nos. 280/87 and 308/87)

Indexed As: R. v. R.M.C. and F.D.M.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Hall, O'Sullivan and Lyon, JJ.A.

May 13, 1988.

Summary:

Two young offenders, both teenagers, were charged with first degree murder.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, Huband, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported in 45 Man.R.(2d) 24, affirmed that the young offender F.D.M. should be transferred to adult court.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, Huband, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported in 45 Man.R.(2d) 38, affirmed that the young offender R.M.C. should also be transferred to adult court.

Both young offenders were convicted of first degree murder by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years. In convicting the youths, the jury rejected their defence of insanity. The youths both appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in the following decision, dismissed both appeals.

Criminal Law - Topic 112

Insanity, automatism etc. - Delusion or mental aberration - Two teenaged boys were convicted of first degree murder - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the evidence showed they were suffering from megalomania, and "no doubt thought that they had extraordinary powers and, morally or amorally, were entitled to disregard the laws of the country at their own pleasure" - The court held that their feeling, if it might be described as a delusion at all, was not the kind of delusion referred to in s. 16(3) of the Criminal Code - The court further opined that "medically insane people can be made responsible for their acts if the insanity does not fall within ... s. 16 ..." - See paragraphs 10 to 12.

Criminal Law - Topic 5332

Evidence - Witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Voir dire - Necessity and purpose of - A teenaged boy, accused of murder, made oral statements before trial to a counsellor at a Youth Centre - The statements were damaging to the boy's defence of insanity - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was correct in admitting the statements without a voir dire, because the boy talked to the witness as a counsellor and friend, not as a person in authority - Further, the remarks were spontaneous within the meaning of s. 56(3) of the Young Offenders Act and therefore did not require a voir dire - See paragraphs 4 to 8.

Criminal Law - Topic 5347

Evidence - Witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Young offenders - Statements of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5332 above].

Criminal Law - Topic 5353

Evidence - Witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Who is person in authority - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5332 above].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Godfrey (1984), 26 Man.R.(2d) 61; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 233 (C.A.), folld. [para. 3].

R. v. Simpson (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 337, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Erven (1978), 25 N.R. 49; 44 C.C.C.(2d) 76 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Harper (1981), 34 N.R. 359 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Rothman (1981), 35 N.R. 485; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 30 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Abbey (1982), 43 N.R. 30; 29 C.R.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.C.S. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 16(3) [paras. 10-11]; sect. 613(1)(b)(iii) [para. 13].

Young Offenders Act, S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 110, sect. 56 [para. 6].

Counsel:

G.G. Brodsky, Q.C., for F.D.M.;

H.S. Leonoff, for R.M. C.;

J.G. Dangerfield, Q.C., and R. Morrison, for the Crown.

These appeals were heard before Hall, O'Sullivan and Lyon, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal on May 3, 1988. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by O'Sullivan, J.A., on May 13, 1988.