R. v. Cooper

Listen to Podcast
Case Brief
Facts

Lyndon Paul Cooper was convicted of second-degree murder under s. 212(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code. Cooper and the victim were drinking, and an argument ensued. Cooper struck the victim and grabbed her throat. Cooper claimed he blacked out and had no recollection of causing her death. Expert evidence indicated the victim died from manual strangulation requiring approximately two minutes of pressure. The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, stating the accused needed a persisting knowledge that the act was likely to cause death.

Issues

What is the nature of the intent required for a conviction of murder under s. 212(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code? Specifically, must the mens rea (subjective intent to cause bodily harm and subjective knowledge that the bodily harm is likely to result in death) coincide with the actus reus (the act of strangulation)? Must the intent persist throughout the entire act?

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court held that s. 212(a)(ii) requires (a) subjective intent to cause bodily harm, and (b) subjective knowledge that the bodily harm is of such a nature that it is likely to result in death. While the mens rea must be present and coincide with the actus reus at some point, it is not necessary for the guilty act and the intent to be completely concurrent, nor must the intent persist throughout the entire act. The Court reasoned that the jury could infer that Cooper, by grabbing the victim's neck, intended to cause bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause death. The Court emphasized that the directions to the jury, when viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed the legal principles and evidence to be considered.

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the conviction. The Court held that the jury could reasonably infer that the actus reus and mens rea coincided when Cooper grabbed the victim's neck and shook her. It was not necessary for the requisite intent to continue throughout the entire time required to cause the death of the victim.

Transcript
Welcome back to Casepod, where we dissect pivotal legal cases! Today, we're diving into R. v. Cooper, a fascinating case concerning the intent required for a murder conviction. So, picture this: Cooper and the victim are drinking, things escalate, an argument erupts. Cooper strikes the victim, grabs her throat, and then claims he blacks out, remembering nothing. The autopsy? Manual strangulation, taking about two minutes of sustained pressure. The initial conviction for second-degree murder was overturned on appeal, the Court of Appeal stating that Cooper needed a persisting knowledge that his actions were likely to cause death. But the Supreme Court disagreed, leading to this landmark decision. The core legal question here is: what exactly needs to be in Cooper's mind to be guilty of murder under section 212(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code? Does the intent to cause harm, knowing it's likely to cause death, have to be there *every second* of the act? The Supreme Court clarified a crucial point. Section 212(a)(ii) requires two things: first, a *subjective* intent to cause bodily harm, and second, *subjective* knowledge that this bodily harm is likely to result in death. "Subjective" is key here. It's about what Cooper *actually* knew and intended, not what a reasonable person would have known or intended. Now, here's the kicker. The mens rea, that guilty mind, has to be present and coincide with the actus reus, the guilty act, *at some point*. But – and this is a big but – it doesn't have to be a perfect, continuous overlap. Think of it like this: you don't need a constant, unwavering intent for the entire duration of the act. The Court reasoned that the jury was entitled to infer, from the act of grabbing and shaking the victim's neck, that Cooper intended to cause bodily harm and knew it was likely to cause death. The Court emphasized the importance of the jury instructions as a whole. Were they clear enough about the law and the evidence? They thought so, in this case. Ultimately, the Supreme Court restored the original conviction. They said the jury could reasonably infer that the actus reus and mens rea aligned when Cooper grabbed the victim's neck. The intent didn't have to persist throughout the entire strangulation. R. v. Cooper is important because it clarifies the relationship between intent and action in murder cases. It recognizes that human actions are rarely perfectly linear, and that a momentary confluence of intent and action can be enough to establish guilt. It's a nuanced decision that continues to shape how we understand the mens rea of murder.