The Queen v Reti - [2009] NZCA 271

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA1/2009
[2009] NZCA 271
THE QUEEN
v
RANGI MARIE RETI
Hearing:9 June 2009

Court:Arnold, Priestley and Winkelmann JJ
Counsel:A B Fairley for Appellant

M D Downs for Crown

Judgment:25 June 2009 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Arnold J)

Introduction
[1]       The appellant was convicted following a jury trial before Venning J on one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and one count of murder. Both offences took place on the same day and involved the same victim, the appellant’s partner. The Crown alleged that the appellant had first stabbed her partner in the leg and then, about an hour later, had stabbed him in the chest, causing his death.
[2]       At trial the appellant admitted the actus reus of each offence. She denied, however, that she had the necessary intents. The appellant said she did not intend to cause the grievous bodily harm to the victim, simply to injure him. In relation to the murder count, she said that she did not mean to kill the deceased, nor was she reckless within the meaning of s 167(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. In the alternative, she said she was provoked. The jury rejected these contentions.
[3]       The appellant appeals against her convictions on the basis that she suffered a miscarriage of justice as a result of prejudicial material raised by the prosecutor in his cross-examination of a clinical psychologist called on her behalf.
Background
[4]       On the morning of 29 September 2007, the appellant and the deceased began drinking after the appellant had bought a carton of beer. At some point in the day, an argument developed between them. Ultimately, the appellant picked up a knife and chased the deceased with it, stabbing him in the thigh. The wound bled profusely and the appellant made a 111 call to obtain assistance. The police dispatched an ambulance to the property, which arrived around 4 pm. The ambulance left about half an hour later after the deceased refused to go to the hospital for treatment. While the ambulance crew was in attendance, the appellant and the deceased continued to argue and abuse each other verbally.
[5]       Around 5 pm that evening the ambulance crew were directed back to the property. In the intervening period the appellant had again stabbed the deceased, this time in the chest. On this occasion, the wound proved fatal.
[6]       The appellant made two statements to the Police. In the first, she initially denied that she had attacked the deceased with a knife. However, after the statements from several eyewitnesses were read to her, she accepted that she might have been responsible for what happened. In the second interview, the appellant admitted that she had stabbed the deceased in the thigh and in the chest, but denied that she had intended to kill him, although she accepted that she had intended to hurt him.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading The Queen v Reti

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Reti [2009] NZCA 271
Case: [2009] NZCA 271
Decision Date: 25 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Reti was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellant, Rangi Marie Reti, was convicted of one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and one count of murder. The Crown alleged that Reti stabbed her partner in the leg and then, about an hour later, stabbed him in the chest, causing his death. Reti admitted to the acts but denied the necessary intents, claiming she did not intend to cause grievous bodily harm or kill the deceased. The appellant appealed against her convictions, arguing that a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to prejudicial material raised by the prosecutor during cross-examination of a clinical psychologist.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the prejudicial material introduced by the prosecutor led to a miscarriage of justice. The Court noted that the prosecutor's cross-examination of the psychologist went beyond the general evidence of violence within the relationship between the appellant and the deceased. However, the Court found that the themes of violence and the appellant's anger management problems were already before the jury as part of the defence case. The Court also found that the prejudicial material would have had little impact on the jury, given the strength of the Crown case.

Furthermore, the Court found that the trial Judge had taken sufficient steps to address any prejudice, including deleting the prejudicial material from the transcript and giving a strong direction to the jury. The Court was not persuaded that the trial was unfair or that there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders