R. v. Greencorn

R. v. Greencorn

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused entered the dwelling without permission, damaged the door and interfered with the occupant's enjoyment constituting break, enter and mischief under para. 348(1)(b); because mischief is a general-intent offence the intoxication defence lacked an air of reality absent expert evidence of automatism/insanity, and the colour-of-right defence was factually untenable, so the prosecution proved the offence and the accused was guilty.

Citation
2013 NSPC 115
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Matthew David William Greencorn
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Break and Enter and Mischief / Trial Verdict
Outcome
Guilty
Legal Topics
Break and Enter, Mischief, Intoxication Defence, Colour of Right, Mens Rea, General Intent Vs Specific Intent, Admissibility of Statements, Post Offence Conduct
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Break and Enter Mischief Intoxication Defence Colour of Right Mens Rea General Intent Vs Specific Intent +2 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 8 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Matthew David William Greencorn

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Break and Enter and Mischief / Trial Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the elements of breaking and entering and committing mischief under para. 348(1)(b) were proven beyond a reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether the accused's voluntary intoxication negates mens rea for the offence
  3. 3 Whether the accused had colour of right to enter the premises

Ratio Decidendi

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused entered the dwelling without permission, damaged the door and interfered with the occupant's enjoyment constituting break, enter and mischief under para. 348(1)(b); because mischief is a general-intent offence the intoxication defence lacked an air of reality absent expert evidence of automatism/insanity, and the colour-of-right defence was factually untenable, so the prosecution proved the offence and the accused was guilty.

Court Disposition

Guilty

Orders

  • Found guilty of breaking and entering and committing mischief contrary to para. 348(1)(b) of the Criminal Code