Amrita Jogee
2023/12/06
Background
The case of R. v. Lavallee transpired in 1990, and has remained a significant precedent in domestic violence cases. It is worth mentioning that prior to this case, there were little protections and defenses that were stipulated in the law for women experiencing intimate partner violence, specifically in cases of self- defense. This case follows the life of Nicole Lavallee, who after suffering years of domestic violence, had killed her partner. The defense counsel for Ms. Lavallee argued that her actions were that of self- defense, and offered expert testimony on her behalf. This expert testimony introduced battered woman syndrome to the Supreme Court of Canada, and its inclusion as evidence was highly contested.
Key Terms
Domestic Violence: Also referred to as ‘intimate partner violence’, domestic violence is defined as a pattern of behaviors used to gain/ use/ abuse power over another. Some significant types of domestic abuse can include sexual, mental, and physical abuse
Expert Testimony: Specialized knowledge to understand evidence or determine a fact
Battered Woman Syndrome: A woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful
Facts of the Case
The appellant, Ms. Lavallee, was in an abusive relationship for about 3-4 years, in which she endured severe and distressing mental and physical abuse
Between 1983-1986, the appellant made several trips to the hospital for bruises, fractured bones, black eye, among various other injuries
Ms. Lavallee would concoct excuses to explain her injuries
The night of his death, Ms. Lavallee’s partner threatened her saying that she would either kill him, or he would
Ms. Lavallee, in fear of losing her life, shot and killed her partner
The psychiatrist, Dr. Fred Shane performed a psychiatric assessment that was used in
The psychiatrist testified that the appellant's shooting of her partner was a final act of
Procedural Posture
The appellant was acquitted, but the verdict was overturned by a majority of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, and the case was sent back for a retrial
The Court of Appeal suggested that Dr. Shane’s evidence be excluded entirely, claiming that the jury was capable of making their decision without it. This was the key legal issue that resulted in a retrial. It was argued that without the expert testimony by Dr. Shane, the jury would have likely found the appellant guilty. The use of expert testimony as evidence is not uncommon in court but it was thought to be irrelevant in cases of domestic abuse. However, since this case was based on the defense of self- defense, it must be proven that the assault is justifiable under Section 34 of the Criminal Code, which the defense argues cannot be done without the inclusion of Dr. Shane’s testimony.
Legal Issue
The legal issue in this case is; whether the expert testimony is enough evidence/ should be considered evidence, for the justifiability of the appellant's actions under self- defense.
Legal Analysis
Criminal Code Section 34.
(2) Everyone who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes, and
(b) he believes on reasonable and probable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
Ruling
The Court’s inclusion of expert testimony spoke to the elements of self- defense directly, and allowed the ‘battered woman syndrome’ as mentioned by Dr. Fred Shane, to explain the mentality of Ms. Lavallee. Ms. Lavallee’s acquittal was therefore restored.
Implications
The case of R v. Lavallee is notable due to the Supreme Court’s recognition and inclusion of the admissibility of expert testimony in cases of ‘battered woman syndrome’ as it pertains to the elements of self- defense. The implications of this case on future cases of a similar nature are that expert testimony will be presented as evidence and used by the court to make their ruling. This case is especially significant to survivors of domestic violence, in that their situation does not go overlooked in a court of law.
Comentarios