R v Lupien
1970 · SCR 263; Canada
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Lupien was charged with a sexual offence. His account was that he had reacted violently to a homosexual advance. He wanted to call a psychiatrist to explain that reaction. The evidence was excluded at trial.
- Issue
- Is a violent reaction to a homosexual advance something a jury can assess without a psychiatrist?
- Held
- The Supreme Court of Canada held that the psychiatric evidence should have been admitted. The reaction was not a matter of ordinary experience on which the jury could safely rely unaided.
- Principle
- Where the mental process is outside common knowledge, expert evidence is admissible even though it bears on why the accused did what he did.
- Why it matters
- It is the case that goes the other way from Turner. It is Canadian. It is not the rule in the ordinary case.
Words and Latin in this note
- Provocation
- A partial defence to murder in Sierra Leone. The accused lost self-control because of provocative conduct, and a reasonable person with the accused's characteristics might have done as he did. It reduces murder to manslaughter. It is not a defence to any other crime. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.