R. v. Alexander

R. v. Alexander

The judge held there was no air of reality to mental disorder automatism because the evidence showed a transient, non-recurring dissociative episode rebutting the disease-of-the-mind presumption, but there was an air of reality to non-mental disorder automatism because the evidence (expert opinion, external trigger, amnesia, lack of prior episodes) could lead a properly instructed jury to acquit.

Citation
2014 BCSC 554
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Jo Anne Alexander
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Second Degree Murder / Pre Trial Air of Reality Application
Outcome
Mental disorder automatism excluded; non-mental disorder automatism left to the jury
Legal Topics
Automatism, Mental Disorder Automatism, Non Mental Disorder Automatism, Air of Reality Test, Insanity/ncr MD
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Forensic Psychiatry Criminal Procedure Evidence Automatism Mental Disorder Automatism Non Mental Disorder Automatism Air of Reality Test +1 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Jo Anne Alexander

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Second Degree Murder / Pre Trial Air of Reality Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether mental disorder automatism has an air of reality
  2. 2 Whether non-mental disorder automatism has an air of reality
  3. 3 Whether the evidence rebuts the presumption that automatism constitutes a disease of the mind

Ratio Decidendi

The judge held there was no air of reality to mental disorder automatism because the evidence showed a transient, non-recurring dissociative episode rebutting the disease-of-the-mind presumption, but there was an air of reality to non-mental disorder automatism because the evidence (expert opinion, external trigger, amnesia, lack of prior episodes) could lead a properly instructed jury to acquit.

Court Disposition

Mental disorder automatism excluded; non-mental disorder automatism left to the jury

Orders

  • Mental disorder automatism defence not to be put to the jury
  • Non-mental disorder automatism defence to be put to the jury