-121-
of retaliation was proportionate to the provocation. Where the instrument is a deadly instrument Members of the
Jury, the provocation should be more than normal, should
be greater than if the instrument is not a deadly
instrument. And the Crown also asks was that provocation
sufficient to deprive the accused, or to deprive a reasonal1
man of his self control? Counsel addressed you on that.
Is that how a reasonable person would react to a
provocation where someone has accused you of stealing
her peanut money. The Crown is asking you to say that
that could not deprive a reasonable man, and that couldn't
deprive the accused. Defence says I sometimes get giddy,
I am mentally retarded, and the psychiatrist tells you
that such a person may be more apt to lose his self
control than a normal person. So Defence is saying under
those circumstances you can see why he lost his self
control, but it is for you Members of the Jury to decide
if that is so, if the provocation was sufficient to deprive
a reasonable person of his self control. If you find then
Members of the Jury there is this provocation, that he
lost his self control, that any reasonable person would
have lost his self control and that this accused infact
lost his self control, and if you think that the instrument
was not an unreasonable instrument in the circumstances,
Members of the Jury, that provocation will reduce the
charge from murder and you will have to convict him of
manslaughter and not of murder. The burden as I say remains
with the Crown to prove that absence of provocation.
Members of the Jury, I think I have talked long
enough,
have covered all the grounds for you, and I told
you that in criminal cases the burden remains with the
10
5
15
20
25
30