SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: R. v. Baker, 2010 SCC 9,  1 S.C.R. 329
Jared Eugene Baker
Her Majesty The Queen
Coram: LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
Reasons for judgment:
LeBel J. (Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ. concurring)
R. v. Baker, 2010 SCC 9,  1 S.C.R. 329
Jared Eugene Baker Appellant
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Baker
2010 SCC 9
File No.: 33323.
2010: March 19.
Present: LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta
Criminal law — Defences — Insanity — Unreasonable verdict — Jury’s finding that accused had not made out defence of insanity — Finding not unreasonable in light of whole of evidence.
Distinguished: R. v. Molodowic, 2000 SCC 16,  1 S.C.R. 420.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 16.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Côté, Martin and Slatter JJ.A.), 2009 ABCA 252, 12 Alta. L.R. (5th) 23, 246 C.C.C. (3d) 520,  1 W.W.R. 455, 464 A.R. 327, 467 W.A.C. 327,  A.J. No. 937 (QL), 2009 CarswellAlta 1435, upholding the accused’s conviction for first degree murder. Appeal dismissed.
Charles B. Davison, for the appellant.
Susan D. Hughson, Q.C., for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
 LeBel J. — Despite the able submissions of Mr. Davison for the appellant, this appeal cannot succeed. This case is different from Molodowic (R. v. Molodowic, 2000 SCC 16,  1 S.C.R. 420), where there was uncontested evidence that the accused was incapable of knowing that his actions were morally wrong. Here, the jury was faced with conflicting expert evidence, with statements from the appellant suggesting, at some points, that he understood the moral blameworthiness of his conduct, and with the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence that could be reasonably interpreted as evidence that he knew that his acts were morally wrong. The jury could make the determination of whether the appellant had made out his defence that he was suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of s. 16 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, on the basis of the whole of this evidence. Its finding that he had not was not unreasonable. The majority of the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the verdict ought not to be interfered with: 2009 ABCA 252, 246 C.C.C. (3d) 520. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Solicitors for the appellant: Abbey Hunter Davison, Edmonton.
Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of Alberta, Edmonton.