Study Guides (254,544)
CA (123,781)
SFU (3,819)
CRIM (371)
CRIM 230 (19)

CRIM230 Cases Highlights PART 1.docx

7 Pages

Course Code
CRIM 230
Simon Verdun- Jones

This preview shows pages 1 and half of page 2. Sign up to view the full 7 pages of the document.

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
CASES CH 1 Case #1- Reference re Firearms Act  Background: Firearms Act required the holders of all firearms in Canada to acquire licences for and to register their gun  Main issue: is enactment of Firearms Act a jurisdiction of federal criminal law? o Federal govt. asserts that the gun control falls under its criminal law power and under its general power to legislate for the Peace, Order and Good Government o Alberta says the law falls under its power over property and civil rights  Parliament has jurisdiction over gun control  law is to enhance public safety  Analysis -- What is the Pith and Substance of the Law o Two aspects of the law must be examined: the purpose of the enacting body, and the legal effect of the law o Pith and Substance of Firearms Act= Public safety o Legal effects of the law involves considering how the law will operate and how it will affect Canadians o Another way to determine the purpose of legislation is to look at the problems it is intended to address so called “mischief” approaches  Illegal trade in guns, link between guns an d violent crimes, suicide and accidental deaths are examples of mischief  Appeal dismissed – firearms act do not infringe on jurisdiction – federal win Case #2: Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott  Background: Three accused, all doctors working in clinic that provided abortion services in Toronto  Main issue: did section 251 infringe on section 7 life liberty and security?  Judgement: SCC said section 251 (now s287) was invalid and of no effect because it infringed on section 7 of the Charter Case #3: Malmo-Levine // Caine  Background: Malmo-Levine - police entered the premises of the Harm Reduction Club and seized 316 grams of marijuana -- Charged with the possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking – convicted  Caine – used marijuana for his own purpose of enjoyment (0.5 grams) -- charged with possession of marijuana  Main issue: is prohibitation unconstitutional? violate section 7 or section 15? Is it a valid exercise of federal criminal law powers?  Judgement: Courts upheld conviction and said was not unconstitutional Case #4: Ferguson  Background: Ferguson was convicted of manslaughter  Section 236(a) said using firearms, impose mandatory minimum 4 years  Trial judge did not impose minimum, gave conditional sentence, said sentence was too cruel for this case, and thus violate section 12 of charter - Granted Ferguson a constitutional exemption (individual remedy)  Main issue: Is this minimum sentence too cruel? If it is, can a trial judge grant exemption? Under what circumstances is this okay?  Judgement: Appeal court set aside the sentence and gave minimum sentence – exemptions should not be given as remedy for cruel punishment imposed by a law, if it really is cruel, the law can be declared of no effect – cannot undermine the rule of law CASES CH 2 Case #5 Chase  Background: Chase entered the home of the complainant, grabbed her breast  Main issue: How should ‘sexual’ be defined?  Judgement :Trial judge said not sexual assault because did not touch ‘private parts’ (bottom)  Appeal to SCC, SCC said is sexual assault, yes guilty  Sexual assault occurs when application of force happens in circumstances of a sexual nature, such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated. Case #6 Toews  Background: Was impaired, sleeping in a sleeping bag in his car parked, on private property 5am, key was in the ignition and the stereo was playing loudly, a friend drove him to the destination, no intention of driving  Main issue: Was he in ‘care or control’ of section 253?  Judgement: Appeal court said not guilty, he had no actus reus – Presumption of Care and Control – when found in driver’s seat, not automatically convicted, onus on accused to prove he did not have any intention of driving vehicle (sleeping bag support statement that he was merely using the vehicle as a place to sleep) Case # 7 Cooper 1993  Background: Cooper convicted of murder of Careen, Was having consensual sex, they started arguing, he hit her head and grabbed her by throat and shook her (at front seat), then he recall nothing and woke up in back seat, finds her dead  Main issue: Did mens rea and actus reus coincide? Accused said he did not have murder intent because he “blacked out” before her death occurred.  Judgement: SCC said still guilty, because when he committed a series of acts that resulted in her death, these acts are considered as being “all part of the same transaction”, if necessary MR coincide at any time with one of these acts, the accused is guilty. CASES CH 3 Case #8 Smithers 1977  Background: Smithers kicked Cobby (after hockey) in the stomach and Cobby fell to floor groaning, died from aspiration of foreign materials present from vomiting. Cobby had a genetic defect, his internal organs didn’t stop vomit from going to airway, he choked and died. A normal person would not die from the kick. Accused argued kick did not cause the death, it was the medical condition.  Main issue: What is the appropriate test of causation in a case involving a charge of manslaughter? The principle issue was whether the appellant had committed homicide by directly and indirectly, by any means causing death  Judgement: Established the rule of causation that applies to all homicide offences – o “Smithers test of causation” = accused’s conduct must be a contributing cause, “outside the de minimis range” = must have had more than a minimal impact.  Smithers was convicted of manslaughter at his trial. Appeals all dismissed. Case #9 Harbottle 1993  Background: Harbottle and his friend forcibly confined Elaine Brown. Ross strangled her while Harbottle held her legs to prevent her from struggling. o Harbottle gave Ross his knife which Ross used to cut off Elaine Brown’s clothes, then he watched his friend rape her and perpetrated the most cruel and demeaning acts upon her o Sexual Assault, bodily harm with weapons, aggravating sexual assault, and kidnaping  Main issue: What is the appropriate test of causation when charged with 1 degree murder (s.231)? Question was Harbottle’s participation enough to be found guilty of first degree murder?  Judgement: Courts made more restrictive test of causation for first-degree murder  accused’s action must form a substantial and integral part of the killing of the victim  In the end, the case facts pointed that Harbottle was a substantial and an integral cause of the death of Elaine o Guilty for Participation, no intervening the act, crimes of domination and murder are under the same transaction, enumerated offence (forcible confinement)  Convicted of first degree murder, appeals all dismissed Case #10 Nette 2001  Background: 95 year old women was robbed by Nette, hogtied and she died due to being hogtied on her bed which resulted in her falling off her bed  Main issue: Is Smithers test still applicable when charged with 2 degree murder?  Judgement: SCC reaffirmed Smithers’ test of causation and ruled that it applied to all homicides offences other than specific types of first degree murder o Re-worded test so easier to understand = “Significant contributing cause” rather than using expressions phrased in the negative such as not a trivial cause or not insignificant  SCC clarified its decision between Smithers and Harbottle o Harbottle decision had not changed the factual test of causation in homicide but had rather imposed an increased degree of legal causation in order to reflect st the high degree of blameworthiness of an accused person who commits 1 degree murder  Convicted of 2 degree, appeals all dismissed Case #11 Rodriguez  Background: Suffers from amyotrpoic lateral sclerosis (lost motor control, but not mental), wants someone to help her assist in suicide  Main issue: Rodriguez argued Section 241(b) prohibiting assistant in suicide – infringes s7 and s.
More Less
Unlock Document
Subscribers Only

Only pages 1 and half of page 2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
Subscribers Only
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document
Subscribers Only

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.