Kevin was a person who took a heavy dose of crystal methamphetamine ended up becoming very violent and ended up killing his friend Ross. Kevin is being charged with second-degree murder. He claims that he cannot remember anything when it comes to the killing of his friend Ross. In this case, Kevin is hoping to find a defence that he could use to help defend him against the charges he faces. In Kevin’s case, there is no defence that he can use when it comes to the second-degree murder.
To further understand why the defences would not work, one must understand a couple of defences that he could attempt to try but would not actually work out. The first defence he could attempt to try is the defence of automatism. The second defence is the defence …show more content…
These conditions can be sleeping walking like it was in the case of R. V. Parks in 1992. The second type is the idea that the act was committed because the person had automatism from an external trauma. An example of this would be if a person had fallen and gotten hurt and their friend did not help them and then the person who got hurt ended up killing their friend because they had gained trauma from this. This type is not relevant to this case. The third type of automatism is when it is caused from another action that was involuntary. An example of this would be the case of a guy named Mr. King who ended up having an accident due to having to visit the dentist and getting anesthesia and not being told not to drive by his dentist. This too, is not relevant to the …show more content…
This is due to the fact that it has to be medically proven by a doctor for it to be admissible in court. This defence would work if the person claimed that they had amnesia and not a loss of memory. If a person, like Kevin claimed that he could not remember actually doing the act, this proves that the person had a loss of memory and not amnesia.
In Kevin’s case, he would not receive either defence as he voluntarily took the drugs that led up to his memory loss. No one forced him to take the drugs. Not only that, the drugs had a negative reaction into his system that caused him to become very violent. Kevin also claims to not remember doing the killing, but who is to say that he is trying to use that as a defence. In the case, there was no information as to whether a doctor proved that he did have amnesia. It only states that Kevin could not remember doing the act, but he did remember taking the drug.
In conclusion, Kevin would not be able to claim any defence as he was the person who did the drugs that caused him to change in personality. If he had amnesia for committing the murder, this would not be a reasonable defence as he took drugs to cause the amnesia. If he had not used drugs and had some type of trauma happen that caused him to change personality against his will, then and then only would he be able to have a defence against the murder of his
To further understand why the defences would not work, one must understand a couple of defences that he could attempt to try but would not actually work out. The first defence he could attempt to try is the defence of automatism. The second defence is the defence …show more content…
These conditions can be sleeping walking like it was in the case of R. V. Parks in 1992. The second type is the idea that the act was committed because the person had automatism from an external trauma. An example of this would be if a person had fallen and gotten hurt and their friend did not help them and then the person who got hurt ended up killing their friend because they had gained trauma from this. This type is not relevant to this case. The third type of automatism is when it is caused from another action that was involuntary. An example of this would be the case of a guy named Mr. King who ended up having an accident due to having to visit the dentist and getting anesthesia and not being told not to drive by his dentist. This too, is not relevant to the …show more content…
This is due to the fact that it has to be medically proven by a doctor for it to be admissible in court. This defence would work if the person claimed that they had amnesia and not a loss of memory. If a person, like Kevin claimed that he could not remember actually doing the act, this proves that the person had a loss of memory and not amnesia.
In Kevin’s case, he would not receive either defence as he voluntarily took the drugs that led up to his memory loss. No one forced him to take the drugs. Not only that, the drugs had a negative reaction into his system that caused him to become very violent. Kevin also claims to not remember doing the killing, but who is to say that he is trying to use that as a defence. In the case, there was no information as to whether a doctor proved that he did have amnesia. It only states that Kevin could not remember doing the act, but he did remember taking the drug.
In conclusion, Kevin would not be able to claim any defence as he was the person who did the drugs that caused him to change in personality. If he had amnesia for committing the murder, this would not be a reasonable defence as he took drugs to cause the amnesia. If he had not used drugs and had some type of trauma happen that caused him to change personality against his will, then and then only would he be able to have a defence against the murder of his