Trance murder? A woman who shot and killed her husband while she was in a trance state with no memory of the action has had her acquital upheld . . . acquittal upheld for woman who killed husband in trance state . . .

Acquittal upheld for woman who killed husband in trance state . . . . A Quebec woman who shot and killed her abusive husband while in a trance-like state and was then acquitted of murder will not face a new trial. The Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday overturned an appeal court ruling and said Rita Graveline’s jury acquittal will stand. Graveline shot her sleeping husband Michael in 1999. At trial, her lawyer offered the rare defence of automatism, saying she was in a trance-like state at the time because of 30 years of physical and mental abuse at the hands of her husband. Experts for both the Crown and the defence agreed that Graveline had no memory of the shooting and both sides agreed that she suffered from battered-wife syndrome. In Canadian law, however, battered-wife syndrome is not, in itself, a defence. Although the lawyer said in his opening statement that he would also claim self-defence, he did not raise that in his case. The trial judge, in his jury instructions and over the objections of the Crown, told the jurors they could consider an acquittal on the grounds of self defence. The Crown appealed the not-guilty verdict, saying the judge had erred in his instructions. The Quebec Court of Appeal agreed and ordered a new trial. However, the high court overturned that finding in its 6-1 ruling and reinstated the acquittal. Writing for the majority, Justice Morris Fish called it “an unusual and difficult case.” He pointed out that automatism and self defence are contradictory. The former implies an inability to form intent, the latter suggests action against a perceived threat. “An appeal by the attorney general cannot succeed on an abstract or purely hypothetical possibility that the accused would have been convicted but for the error of law,” Fish wrote. “Something more must be shown.” He said the Crown had to demonstrate that the error by the judge might reasonably have had a material bearing on the acquittal. “We have concluded that the Crown has failed to discharge its `very heavy’ burden in this regard.” Justice Louis LeBel disagreed, saying the trial was “seriously tainted.” He said he would have followed the appeal court ruling and sent the case to a new trial. “Despite the problems this solution causes for the parties and witnesses and notwithstanding the deference that appellate courts must show in reviewing acquittals, there are cases in which the appellate courts must intervene. This is one such case.” Elizabeth Sheehy, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, said the ruling may encourage defence lawyers in similar cases to address self defence. “I think what it does do is perhaps leave open the door for lawyers who are defending women like Rita Graveline to somehow make sure that self defence gets before a jury,” she said. Sheehy said it’s clear Graveline was victimized during her troubled marriage: “This is a woman who experienced extreme violence at the hands of her husband. I would say that probably every moment in that woman’s house was a very dangerous one.” Sheehy also said Canadian law falls short in dealing with battered-wife syndrome. “In all justice, self-defence should have been available,” she said. “It’s just that our law doesn’t quite encompass the realities faced by battered women in these cases.”

Interesting that defence and prosecution were in agreement about so many points in the case. The Self-Defence gambit doesn’t normally apply to automatism defence as automatism implies unconscious action. However, the judge is incorrect in assuming that it is not a factor as the unconcsious automatistic action is very likely one based upon an unconscious self-defence mechanism. Her unconscious understood that she wouldn’t act to get out of the relationship any other way and so created this strategy as a means of protecting her from further harm from the guy . . . creepy and sad but the subconscious isn’t really about rational thought or particularly intelligent decisions, just action to protect and/or nurture the organism.