Kellie Dawn Johnson was in the midst of a psychotic episode when she killed her five-year-old son and therefore is not criminally responsible for her actions, a Saskatoon judge ruled.
Although Johnson, 38, has never denied slitting her son’s throat in their Avenue S North home on Jan. 4, 2014, she went to trial after pleading not guilty to first-degree murder. Defence lawyer Leslie Sullivan argued that Johnson truly believed she was saving her son from a “terrible fate” and told police that an evil “woman” would stalk her and threaten to kill her and her two sons. She was convinced that if she died, her youngest son would be molested, then become a molester, and therefore go to hell, according to an agreed statement of facts.
No person is criminally responsible for an act committed while suffering from mental disorder that renders the person incapable of knowing it was wrong, Justice Neil Gabrielson said in his decision Tuesday in Saskatoon Court of Queen’s Bench.
Gabrielson also said there is a difference between something being legally wrong and morally wrong, such as when someone believes the killing is a divine order.
“At the time, she believed she was doing the only thing that would save him from eternal damnation,” Gabrielson said.
As Gabrielson read his decision, Johnson sat with her arms crossed, staring at the judge and not showing any overt signs of emotion. Gabrielson told Johnson he “had a difficult time making the decision.
Johnson’s response: “Thank you.”
Johnson’s state of mental health was steadily declining, Sullivan said. She had been suffering from schizophrenia for quite some time and stopped taking her medication about a month before the killing, court heard.
The Crown argued that even though Johnson had been diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic, she still knew the act was “morally wrong” and that it would be viewed that way by society. Crown prosecutor Brian Hendrickson said there’s no doubt that Johnson was suffering from schizophrenia, but cited testimony from a psychiatrist who said it wouldn’t necessarily diminish her ability to reason.
He argued the fact that Johnson bought and hid a knife, hesitated at her son’s bedside before killing him, apologized and then ran away proves she knew what she did was morally wrong — if not in her own eyes, then at least in the eyes of society. Hendrickson said Johnson’s actions before, during and after the murder also demonstrate an ability to make rational decisions. He also pointed to evidence that Johnson was able to ignore what the “woman” told her in the past.
On the night of the murder, Johnson felt she was left with no choice when the “woman” told her she was going to die, Sullivan argued. She said Johnson did the only thing she believed she could do — send her son to heaven by killing him first.
“She is living in a different world than we are,” Sullivan said during her closing arguments. “She believed she was doing the right thing.”
Under the Criminal Code of Canada, no person is criminally responsible for an act committed while suffering from a mental disorder that renders the person incapable of knowing it was wrong. A forensic psychiatrist who examined Johnson after the murder, and testified at her trial, said Johnson’s case would fit that criteria.
Instead of serving a prison sentence, people who are found not criminally responsible are sent to a forensic psychiatric hospital where they are assessed and treated. A review board decides if and when the person can be released back into the community.
