R. v. Morin

R. v. Morin

The trial judge accepted the complainant's testimony over the accused's, applied the W.(D.) test and found the accused's heavy methamphetamine intoxication made his conflicting evidence unreliable; on the accepted evidence the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt assault (Count 1), assault causing bodily harm (Count 3), uttering threats (Count 4), sexual assault (Count 5) and confinement (Count 6); Counts 2 and 7 were stayed by the Crown and Counts 8, 9 and 10 were judicially stayed under Kienapple as subsumed by other convictions.

Citation
2018 BCSC 533
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: David Richard Morin
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Guilty convictions entered on Counts 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6; Counts 2 and 7 stayed by the Crown; Counts 8, 9 and 10 judicially stayed.
Legal Topics
Assault, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Sexual Assault, Forcible Confinement, Uttering Threats, Weapons Offences, Intoxication and Criminal Responsibility, Kienapple Principle, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Assault Assault Causing Bodily Harm Sexual Assault Forcible Confinement Uttering Threats +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

David Richard Morin

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sexual activity was consensual
  2. 2 Whether the accused's heavy methamphetamine intoxication undermined credibility and reliability of his evidence
  3. 3 Whether bodily harm was established for s.267(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge accepted the complainant's testimony over the accused's, applied the W.(D.) test and found the accused's heavy methamphetamine intoxication made his conflicting evidence unreliable; on the accepted evidence the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt assault (Count 1), assault causing bodily harm (Count 3), uttering threats (Count 4), sexual assault (Count 5) and confinement (Count 6); Counts 2 and 7 were stayed by the Crown and Counts 8, 9 and 10 were judicially stayed under Kienapple as subsumed by other convictions.

Court Disposition

Guilty convictions entered on Counts 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6; Counts 2 and 7 stayed by the Crown; Counts 8, 9 and 10 judicially stayed.

Orders

  • Count 1: guilty (assault)
  • Count 2: stayed by Crown