Supreme Court

Mens Rea

Common sense inference may apply even where accused may be impaired

Accused charged with second degree murder. Accused shot deceased in chest with handgun from distance of five feet. Accused testified that he did not intend for gun to go off. Accused had developmental disabilities. Trial judge rejected accused’s evidence and inferred that he intended reasonable consequences of his actions. Accused convicted and conviction upheld by Court of Appeal. Appeal dismissed. Trial judge was entitled to consider “common sense inference” that accused intended natural consequences of his actions. Common sense inference may apply even where accused may be impaired. Trial judge properly considered evidence bearing on accused’s awareness of consequences of his actions before reverting to common sense inference.

R. v. Walle

(July 27, 2012, S.C.C., McLachlin C.J.C., Deschamps, Fish, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ., File No. 34080) Decision at 93 W.C.B. (2d) 638 was affirmed. 101 W.C.B. (2d) 459 (41 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?