R. v. Cooper

Listen to Podcast
Case Brief
Facts

The respondent, Cooper, was convicted of second-degree murder under s. 212(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code. Cooper and the victim had been drinking. An argument ensued, during which Cooper struck the deceased and grabbed her throat with both hands, shaking her. Cooper claimed he then blacked out and had no recollection of causing her death. Expert evidence indicated death was caused by one-handed manual strangulation, requiring approximately two minutes of pressure. The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, requiring a persisting knowledge that the act was likely to cause death.

Issues

The central issue is the nature of the intent required for a conviction of murder under s. 212(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code, specifically: (1) Whether the accused must have a subjective intent to cause bodily harm; (2) Whether the accused must have subjective knowledge that the bodily harm is of such a nature that it is likely to result in death; and (3) Whether the mens rea must coincide with the actus reus, and if so, to what extent.

Legal Analysis

The court held that a conviction under s. 212(a)(ii) requires both a subjective intent to cause bodily harm and subjective knowledge that the bodily harm is of such a nature that it is likely to result in death. The mens rea must coincide with the actus reus, but complete concurrency is not always necessary; they need only coincide at some point. An initially innocent act can become criminal when the accused gains knowledge of the act's nature and continues the action. The Crown must prove the accused intended to cause bodily harm, knowing it was likely to cause death, but this intent need not persist throughout the entire act of strangulation. The jury could infer the necessary intent and coincidence of actus reus and mens rea when Cooper grabbed the victim's neck, knowing it was likely to cause death. The court emphasized that jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and adequately address the Crown and defense positions, legal issues, and relevant evidence.

Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, thereby restoring the original conviction. The Court held that the trial judge's instructions to the jury, viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed the necessary elements of s. 212(a)(ii) murder, including the requirement of subjective intent to cause bodily harm and subjective knowledge that such harm was likely to cause death. It was not necessary for the requisite intent to continue throughout the entire act of strangulation; it was sufficient that the intent coincided with the wrongful act at some point.

Transcript
Welcome back to Casepod, legal minds! Today, we're diving into a fascinating case about the tricky concept of intent in murder cases: *R. v. Cooper*. So, here’s the gist. Cooper was convicted of second-degree murder. He and the victim were drinking, things got heated, and he ended up grabbing her throat. His defense? He blacked out and didn't remember killing her. The real kicker? Expert testimony said the strangulation required sustained pressure for about two minutes. The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, focusing on whether Cooper truly knew his actions were likely to cause death. That's where things get legally interesting. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the Court of Appeal. The core issue boiled down to the *mens rea*, the guilty mind, required for a murder conviction under s. 212(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code. Did Cooper *intend* to cause bodily harm? Did he *know* that harm was likely to cause death? And, crucially, did that intent coincide with the act of strangulation? The Court clarified that yes, you need both subjective intent to cause bodily harm *and* subjective knowledge that the harm is likely to cause death for a conviction. It's not enough to just *do* the act; you have to have the right (or rather, wrong) state of mind. But here's the nuance: complete, continuous concurrency of intent and action isn't always necessary. They just need to coincide *at some point*. Think of it like this: an initially innocent act can become criminal if you gain awareness of its deadly nature and *continue* doing it. The Crown had to prove Cooper intended to cause bodily harm, *knowing* it was likely to cause death. The Court said that intent didn't need to be present throughout the entire strangulation. The jury could reasonably infer the necessary intent when Cooper initially grabbed the victim's neck, *knowing* that action was likely to cause death. Ultimately, the Supreme Court restored the original conviction. They felt the trial judge's instructions to the jury, when looked at as a whole, properly explained the elements of s. 212(a)(ii) murder. It all came down to the jury understanding that Cooper, at some point during the act, intended to cause bodily harm and *knew* it was likely to kill her. *Cooper* highlights the vital role of intent in criminal law. It shows how the court grapples with proving subjective states of mind and how intent can evolve during the commission of a crime. It also underscores the importance of clear and comprehensive jury instructions.