The appellant, a psychopath, was convicted of first degree murder.
His only defence was insanity.
The trial judge instructed the jury that psychopathy could be a disease of the mind and defined 'appreciating' under s. 16 of the Criminal Code as knowing the physical nature and consequences of an act.
The Court of Appeal substituted a verdict of second degree murder due to an inadequate charge on the difference between first and second degree murder.
The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing the trial judge misdirected the jury on the meaning of 'appreciating' and failed to adequately review medical evidence.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly defined 'appreciating' and adequately instructed the jury.
