R. v. Johansson

R. v. Johansson

The complainant's account, though containing some inconsistencies and affected by alcohol, was sufficiently corroborated by contemporaneous police observations and medical expert evidence (two rib fractures, pneumothorax and neck bruising consistent with strangulation) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused choked/struck the complainant and caused injuries meeting the s.268 aggravated assault threshold; defence alternative explanations were rejected as speculative.

Citation
2016 BCSC 96
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Vincent Carl Johansson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Aggravated Assault / Trial Judgment (conviction)
Outcome
Guilty of aggravated assault
Legal Topics
Assault, Aggravated Assault, Evidence, Credibility, Medical Expert Evidence, Strangulation/neck Compression
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Assault Aggravated Assault Evidence Credibility Medical Expert Evidence Strangulation/neck Compression

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Vincent Carl Johansson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Aggravated Assault / Trial Judgment (conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused committed aggravated assault contrary to s.268 Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the complainant and accused were credible and reliable
  3. 3 Causation of the complainant's rib fractures and pneumothorax

Ratio Decidendi

The complainant's account, though containing some inconsistencies and affected by alcohol, was sufficiently corroborated by contemporaneous police observations and medical expert evidence (two rib fractures, pneumothorax and neck bruising consistent with strangulation) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused choked/struck the complainant and caused injuries meeting the s.268 aggravated assault threshold; defence alternative explanations were rejected as speculative.

Court Disposition

Guilty of aggravated assault

Orders

  • Convicted of one count of aggravated assault contrary to s.268 of the Criminal Code