Cases

SCC Case Information

Summary

33054

Her Majesty the Queen v. Stephanie Rosa Bird

(Alberta) (Criminal) (By Leave)

(Publication ban in case)

Keywords

Criminal Law.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch) for information purposes only.

Criminal law - Defences - Abandonment - Whether the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that there was an air of reality to the defence of abandonment of a common intention in the circumstances of this case - Whether something less than equivocal notice of an intention to abandon the common unlawful purpose is required where an offender may be fearful for their safety but where the defence of duress does not apply - Whether the requirement or degree of unequivocal notice of an intention to abandon the common unlawful purpose changes or diminishes depending upon the degree of earlier involvement in the common enterprise, notwithstanding a finding that the involvement was sufficient to make the offender a party to the offence.

On April 2005, Nina Courtepatte, and her friend, K.B., were lured from West Edmonton Mall on the false promise of being taken to a party. The pair left the mall and got into a car driven by Michael Briscoe with Joseph Laboucan, M.W., D.T. and the Respondent also in the car. They went to a golf course. While they were walking down a gravel path and onto a fairway, the Respondent hit Nina Courtepatte with a wrench that she had carried from the trunk of the car. Nina Courtepatte was then held down and sexually assaulted. The Respondent held her down for a brief time before leaving with K.B. and returning to the car. After the Respondent left, Nina Courtepatte was beaten to death. Five individuals, Joseph Laboucan, Michael Briscoe, M.W., D.T. and the Respondent, were charged with first-degree murder, aggravated sexual assault and kidnapping. Joseph Laboucan and Michael Briscoe were tried together; M.W. pleaded guilty to first-degree murder; D.T. was convicted of second-degree murder and aggravated sexual assault, but acquitted of kidnapping. The Respondent was acquitted of first-degree murder, but convicted of the included offence of manslaughter. She was also convicted of aggravated sexual assault and kidnapping. A Crown appeal was brought on the basis that the trial judge erred in finding an air of reality to the defence of abandonment. The majority of the Court of Appeal found that there was some evidence on the record capable of supporting the defence of abandonment and dismissed the appeal. Costigan J.A. concluded that there was no evidential foundation for the defence of abandonment and would have allowed the appeal, set aside the manslaughter conviction and substituted a conviction for first degree murder.