R. v. Munguia, 2010 ABQB 732

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: R. v. Munguia, 2010 ABQB 732 Date: 20101124 Docket: 090970328Q1 Registry: Edmonton Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Ruiz Julian Munguia Accused Restriction on Publication: By Court Order, the evidence taken, the information given, the representations made and these reasons for decision may not be published, broadcast, or transmitted in any manner, until the end of the trial. See the Criminal Code , s. 517.

Editorial Notice: The interim publication ban ended on November 24, 2011. _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Brian R. Burrows _______________________________________________________

[ 1 ] Ruiz Julian Munguia has been committed to stand trial in this Court on the charge of aggravated assault. The complainant is his wife. Mr. Munguia was arrested on August 9, 2009 and has been denied judicial interim release. [ 2 ] The circumstances leading to the charges have a significant element of mystery to them. Mr. Munguia has no criminal record. He and the complainant have been married about 13 years. He suffers from epilepsy. He has frequent seizures.

He received medical attention for this condition and is on medication for it. [ 3 ] The Crown alleges that on August 9, 2009 after a peaceful evening watching television with his wife they each retired to separate rooms. At about 3:30 a.m. the complainant awoke to find Mr. Munguia hitting her in the head. He kept hitting her. After a significant time, he stopped and collapsed. The complainant called 911. There was a lot of blood on the complainant, the accused and the floor. The complainant suffered severe injuries. [ 4 ] The issue for trial appears to be whether Mr.

Munguia ’ s conduct was the result of an epileptic seizure or some other neurological event so that he did not have the mens rea necessary for criminal liability. [ 5 ] The trial in this Court has been set for two weeks in June 2011. The long delay between the arrest and trial has resulted from changes in defence counsel and changes in defence counsel views as to how long the trial will take. Earlier trial arrangements were abandoned when present counsel determined that the amount of time set with the agreement of previous counsel was insufficient.

It appears that the delay is not the result of act or omission on the part of the Crown. [ 6 ] Mr. Stonhouse submits that the risk that Mr. Munguia might commit offences if he were released pending trial can be reduced to an acceptable level by requiring him to live with his brother in Debolt, Alberta, a community a long way from Edmonton where the complainant resides. His brother is willing to take Mr. Munguia in. [ 7 ] Mr. Stonhouse proposes further conditions of release restricting Mr.

Munguia ’ s attendance in Edmonton to medical and legal appointments and requiring attendances in Edmonton to be supervised by the brother and notified to the bail supervisor. He observes that Mr. Munguia does not now know where the complainant is living and this also provides her with some security that he would not be able to contact her. [ 8 ] If the concern were limited to protecting the complainant from Mr. Munguia I expect the conditions Mr. Stonhouse proposes would be satisfactory. However, there is nothing before me to establish whether or not Mr. Munguia is a potential danger to others. Mr.

Stonhouse advised that since he has been in custody it appears his medications have been more effective than they previously were in controlling his epilepsy. But no medical opinion as to the risks Mr. Munguia represents has been provided. [ 9 ] As I understand it, it remains Mr. Munguia ’ s position that his violent behaviour of August 9, 2009 was not intentional - it was involuntary behaviour brought on by his medical condition. In these circumstances, in my view, the Court should, at very least, have a medical opinion that Mr.

Munguia is not a potential danger to others before permitting his release. [ 10 ] The application is accordingly dismissed. Heard on the 22 nd day of November 2010. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 23 rd day of November 2010.

Brian R. Burrows J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Marisa Anderson for the Crown T. A. Stonhouse for the Accused