R. v. Baker

R. v. Baker

Given conflicting expert evidence, the appellant's statements suggesting some recognition of moral blameworthiness, and circumstances that could be interpreted as evidence of knowledge of moral wrongness, the jury's finding that the defence under s.16 was not established was reasonable; the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
2010 SCC 9
Parties
Appellant: Jared Eugene Baker; Respondent: Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Insanity Defence, Unreasonable Verdict, Jury Finding, Section 16 Criminal Code
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Insanity Defence Unreasonable Verdict Jury Finding Section 16 Criminal Code

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jared Eugene Baker

Appellant

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury's finding that the accused did not establish the defence of insanity under s.16 of the Criminal Code was unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether Molodowic requires overturning a jury verdict where there is contested expert evidence and some evidence of awareness of moral wrongness

Ratio Decidendi

Given conflicting expert evidence, the appellant's statements suggesting some recognition of moral blameworthiness, and circumstances that could be interpreted as evidence of knowledge of moral wrongness, the jury's finding that the defence under s.16 was not established was reasonable; the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.