2 total
Sentencing judge may determine aggravating facts unresolved by a jury.
Following a jury trial, the accused was convicted of failing to provide the necessaries of life to his infant child but the jury was unable to reach verdicts on related aggravated assault and assault counts.
At sentencing, the issue arose whether the court could determine under s. 724 of the Criminal Code whether the trauma inflicted on the child was intentional, which would constitute an aggravating circumstance.
The court held that a sentencing judge may determine relevant factual issues not resolved by the jury, provided the facts essential to the verdict are accepted and any aggravating circumstance is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Based on medical evidence and the accused’s after‑the‑fact conduct, the court concluded the trauma was intentionally inflicted.
The finding was included as part of the factual basis for sentencing.
Parent jailed for failing to obtain urgent medical care for severely injured infant.
The offender was convicted by a jury of failing to provide the necessaries of life to his infant child after failing to obtain urgent medical treatment following severe head trauma.
The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender intentionally inflicted the trauma and knowingly failed to seek medical assistance for approximately 40 hours while the child displayed symptoms of serious brain injury.
The child suffered catastrophic and permanent disabilities, including blindness, cognitive impairment, seizures, and physical disability.
The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the paramount sentencing objectives given the offender’s knowledge of the injury and his decision to prioritize self‑interest over the child’s safety.
A penitentiary sentence was imposed after credit for pre‑sentence custody.
