Menu

Topics

Connect

Comments

Comments closed.

Due to the sensitive and/or legal subject matter of some of the content on globalnews.ca, we reserve the ability to disable comments from time to time.

Please see our Commenting Policy for more.

Crown appeals acquittal of Calgary man accused in drug-fuelled assault

WATCH ABOVE: (From March 3, 2020) A former Mount Royal University hockey captain who brutally beat a professor in her home while drunk and high on magic mushrooms was acquitted on Tuesday. As Silvana Benolich reports, it's believed to be the first time a defence of "extreme intoxication to the point of automatism" has been successfully argued in Alberta – Mar 3, 2020

The Crown is appealing the acquittal of a Calgary man who court heard was delirious on magic mushrooms when he broke into a professor’s house naked and assaulted her.

Story continues below advertisement

Earlier this month, Justice Michele Hollins found Matthew Brown not guilty of two counts of break and enter — one with commission of aggravated assault, and the other with commission of mischief.

Hollins said in her decision that the evidence supported the defence’s argument that Brown was experiencing automatism and was not in control of his actions.

READ MORE: Calgary man acquitted of random attack on professor while naked, high on mushrooms

The Crown’s notice of appeal says Hollins erred by making findings in fact in the absence of evidence and accepting expert witness evidence without foundational facts.

The trial heard the former captain of Mount Royal University’s men’s hockey team, who is now 29, was drinking and eating magic mushrooms at a house party in January 2018.

Court heard that Brown broke into the home of Janet Hamnett, a university professor who lived alone, and hit her with a broom handle.

Story continues below advertisement

The Crown is also appealing a pre-trial decision by a different Queen’s Bench judge that a Criminal Code section that prohibits self-induced intoxication as a defence in violent crimes was unconstitutional.

It is asking for the acquittals to be set aside and replaced with convictions, or a new trial.

Advertisement

You are viewing an Accelerated Mobile Webpage.

View Original Article