Textbook Notes (358,627)
Canada (155,760)
Justice (21)
JUST*1010 (8)
Chapter 10

Chapter 10 Criminal Offences
Chapter 10 Criminal Offences

7 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Guelph-Humber
John Irwin

Chapter 10: Provocation and Intoxication  Provation and intoxication differ from other defences; ONLY PARTIAL DEFENSES o Reduce severity of criminal charge but not absolute acquittal; o Provocation = 1st = manslaughter Provocation:  General Nature of the defence and Section 232: o Provocation only raised with murder charge; and if sucessful = manslaughter o Attempts to show a little mercy to those individual who their opower of self control in face of highly stressful circumstances  Available defense despite the fact that they inteded to kill their victim  Oickle; o New trial because trial judge not made clear to the Jury that provocation makes murder into mansalughter 232 CC:  Cuplable homicide that other would be murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the person who committed it did so in the heat of passion cause by sudden provocation o A wrongful act or an insult is of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprieve an ordinary person of power of self control is provication enough for the purpose of this section if the accused action upon ithe sudden before there was time tfor his passion to cool  ** whether a particular wrong ful acto r insult amounted to provocation  Whether the accused was deprieve of the power of self contorl;  Not only that the accused lost self control; because of overwhelming anger,  Anger cannot stand alone for the defense of provocation.  Extreme anger not defence or does not deprieve someone of mens rea Provocation mustb e sufficient to deprieve an ordinary person of the power of self control  Wrongful act/ that ostensibly caused the accused to lose his or her temper must be of sufch nature as to be sufficient to deprieve an ordianry power of the power of self control o Objective test; personal suscpetibilites and individual characteristics are ignored  But objective test must be modified to take in account of persons particular background and characteristics  Ordinary peson test; any particular characteristics dof the accsued person providing only that such a characteristic directly affects the gravity of any taunt or insult relied by the accsued as a defencse o Characteristics should not be considered that relate to temperament or power of self control o Court discretion o Irrelevant of cultural and religious belief to be considered in the ordinary's persons inquiry o Extreme anger= provacation not revenge or culturally appropriate action Rule of Acting in the Heat of the Moment  On the sudden before there was time for his passion to coool  For defence to be succesfful it must establish that this particular defendant was usbject to suddent provoication and acted in heat of passion  State of intoxication cause him to lose power of self control  Requirements o If something was said or done to be sufficient to depreive an ordinary person of the power of self control  And whether the accused was actually deprieved of his power of self control by the provocation  Sudden provocation; o Meaning no time for cool down Meaning of legal right in section 232 (3)  No one shall be deemed to have given provocation to another by doing anything that he had a legal right to do or by doing anything that the accused cintied him to do in order to provide the accused with an excuse for causing death or bodily harm;  Legal right' o Breaking up with someone is their legal right, but if you say something rude during the breakup then it is outside the legal right Differign Roles of Judge and Jury in Canada where Provocation is Raised  Power of self control deprieved or if an act = provocation are issues left to the jury  Trial judges are under a duty not to submit the issue of provocation to the jury unless they are satisfied that there is some evidence capable of raising a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jurors.  Provocation ; simple a requirement that accused satisfy the evidentiary burdne of proof before the defnce may be considerd by the tirer of fact Intoxication:  Until 1996 no mention of it, before this it was just common law, o Aggravating factor in criminal prosecution o Partial defense, reduce severity of more serious criminal charges. o Only when applied to specific intent, does intoxication become a defense  Not applicable to general or basic intent as in manslaughter or assault  Beard Rules: Daviault:  Intoxication valid defence if it is so extreme as to produce state akin to automatism or insaity; o Not for general and basic intent of offence such that niclude element of assault or other intereference or threats intereference with bodily integrity of another person  Three legal relevant degrees of intoxciation o Mild intoxication;  Alcohol induced relaxation of both inhibitions and socially acceptable behaviours • Not accepted for whether the accsussed possessed mens rea o Advanaced intoxic  Lacks specific intent to the exten of an impairment of the accused foreisght of the consequences of his or her act sufficent to raise reasonable doubt about the requireste of mens rea o Extreme intoxication akin to automatism;  Negates voluntariness; complete defence to criminal responsibility; rare; limit
More Less

Related notes for JUST*1010

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.