Judge allows withdrawal of guilty plea in beating death

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 08/07/2022 (1214 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A Manitoba man who admitted to beating a man to death with a bat in 2019 while extremely drunk has been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, after a Supreme Court ruling allowing the defence of non-insane automatism.

In May, a scheduled manslaughter sentencing for Lucas Duck was adjourned after Queen’s Bench Justice Shawn Greenberg asked defence lawyers if they wanted to reconsider his guilty plea, in light of the recent decision.

The high court had just ruled on three cases that examined whether people who commit certain violent crimes can use the defence of automatism — a state of extreme intoxication to the point where they lose control of themselves.

On Thursday, Greenberg allowed Duck’s plea to be withdrawn, after hearing applications from the accused’s lawyer, Karl Gowenlock, and Crown attorney Paul Girdlestone, who opposed the move.

“I am satisfied that there is enough evidence before me to conclude that not allowing Mr. Duck to pursue the defence would result in a miscarriage of justice,” Greenberg told court.

Duck will face a charge of manslaughter at trial at a later date. On Thursday, the accused, dressed in lock-up grey with slip-on sneakers and gelled black hair, was led in shackles by a sheriff from the Winnipeg courtroom.

Duck, 25, was living at his aunt’s home on Bloodvein First Nation when he beat her longtime partner, Lorne Green, to death with a baseball bat Sept. 2, 2019.

According to an agreed statement of facts provided to court, Duck and others in the home had drank up to three or more 26-ounce bottles of vodka when Duck started beating his aunt, whom he called by his girlfriend’s name.

The woman and another male resident who intervened fled the house, after which Duck turned his attention to Green.

Police arrived to find the kitchen floor covered in blood and heard a loud smacking sound “later determined to be the accused striking the already deceased victim with a baseball bat,” the statement said. “It was immediately apparent that the person was deceased, but not recognizable.”

Police officers said Duck was covered in blood and had a “delusional look on his face.” Duck identified Green by a different name and claimed he was “poisoning his family and giving them syringes,” police reported.

Duck had suffered a traumatic, permanent brain injury when he was assaulted four months before the slaying, leaving moderate-to-severe damage.

A preliminary hearing heard his personality changed after the assault, including becoming more violent — particularly when drinking.

Prior to Greenberg’s decision, Gowenlock had argued the evidence of Duck’s extreme intoxication, the brain injury and his apparently delusional state at the scene of the crime, are consistent with a defence of non-insane automatism.

“It’s our position that on that agreed statement of facts… there is more than enough to show that this defence has a chance of success and that Mr. Duck may in fact be legally innocent,” Gowenlock told Greenberg in court Tuesday.

“I think having an innocent person sentenced for manslaughter would of course be a miscarriage of justice.”

Girdlestone argued the defence required more evidence to withdraw the plea, among other points, including that an expert psychiatric report previously provided to court did not establish his actions were involuntary.

“Mr. Duck should, by evidence, clearly establish that he is within those class of individuals who’ve been affected by the… (Supreme Court) ruling,” Girdlestone told court. “I’m going to suggest that it’s just not simply enough to say theoretically he might be.”

In issuing her decision, Greenberg said Duck’s guilty plea was based on law that did not allow him to argue his actions were involuntary, nor did the psychiatrist address the issue of automatism because it was not a viable defence at the time.

“In any event, Mr. Duck need not establish his innocence in order to be entitled to pursue a defence,” she said.

The judge added it’s her view his brain injury is what puts the non-insane automatism defence at play, over the extreme intoxication alone, as well as the evidence suggesting he lost touch with reality.

It’s unclear, at this point, what evidence threshold Duck will have to meet to make the defence viable at trial, Greenberg noted.

— with files from The Canadian Press

erik.pindera@freepress.mb.ca

Twitter: @erik_pindera