The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a woman originally sentenced in the drowned death of a 2011 child in her care must be acquitted.
Tammy Marion Bouvette was taking care of Iyanna Teeple 19 months in Cranbrook, BC, in 2011, when the child did not respond in the bathroom. Teeple was transferred to a hospital in Calgary, where he later died.
Bouvette was originally accused of second degree murder in the child’s death, then he declared himself guilty of the minor position of criminal negligence. It was sentenced to 12 months in jail.
But an independent review of the case determined that the crown had not revealed all the evidence to Bouvette or his lawyer before he declared himself guilty.
In 2023, the BC Court of Appeals annulled his conviction and ordered a suspension of the procedures, but refused to enter an acquittal.
Bouvette appealed and, in a ruling published on Friday morning, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that it should be acquitted immediately claiming that the crown also sought an acquittal and said that it would not call evidence in a new trial.
‘A spontaneous abortion of justice’
The case became an object of an investigation carried out by CBC’s He Fifth property In 2020, after CBC journalists discovered a report that criticized the evidence of fundamental pathology in the case of the crown against Bouvette.
Bouvette has kept that he did not abuse or kill the child and said The fifth estate He had wanted to avoid a longer prison sentence for a murder position when he made him pleasure.
In 2023, the BC Court of Appeals determined that the BC Prosecutor’s Office had not revealed to the defense lawyers of Bouvette several key evidence items, including the Pathology Evidence Report, which supported Bouvette’s statement that the child had not hurt or careless.
Bouvette’s former defense lawyer said The fifth estate that he had not received that crown report during the Prosecutor’s Office.
At that time, the judges wrote that “not finding bad faith or malice by the crown. But we cannot ignore that the violations of the dissemination were not isolated or limited to the information of doubtful value to the appellant.”
“As a consequence of the non -material dissemination, the appellant was deprived of the opportunity to make an informed decision on how to declare, informed of the strengths and weaknesses of the case against him in fundamental issues.”
The Court ruled that the conviction for criminal negligence of Bouvette, causing the child’s death, was “the product of a spontaneous abortion of justice” and ordered a suspension of the procedures because again trying to try his case would be a “process abuse.”
Bouvette told CBC News that he is satisfied with the decision and hopes that she and her family can “advance.”
“I am happy for everything and that the truth is outside and that everyone can stop saying what they say about me, and all my life could be seen differently with me and my family,” Bouvette said.
“Now there is a closure.”
‘The conviction would be unreasonable … without evidence’
Friday’s decision of the Supreme Court says that the circumstances of the Bouvette case “weigh a lot in favor of an acquittal.”
“[Bouvette] It has already served all of its prayer. The victim’s family fully supports an acquittal, and the condemnation resulting from his false statement of guilt has had a devastating impact on his life, “says the decision.
The judges were unanimous in their decision that Bouvette should be acquitted, if for different reasons.
When writing for the majority, Judge Nicholas Kasir said that the first possible land for an acquittal under the Criminal Code is where there is a lack of evidence to base a reasonable conviction.
The second possible land is where the crown seeks an acquittal and says that it would not call evidence in a new trial.
Kasirer said Bouvette was acquitted in this second land.
The sentence indicates that when Bouvette appealed to the court to seek an acquittal, the crown also “made significant concessions” and agreed that it should be acquitted.
He points out that the crown clarified in the presentations to the Supreme Court that if a new trial was ordered, he would not call any evidence. “
A BC court has annulled the conviction of Tammy Bouvette, who declared himself guilty of criminal negligence in the drowned death of a small child in 2012, describing him as spontaneous abortion of justice and admitting that mistakes were made during his prosecution. Bouvette’s lawyers say it makes little difference because “the damage has been done.”
“Unless it is contrary to the public interest, a Court of Appeals must absolve, therefore, give effect to circumstances that would lead directly to an acquittal if a new trial was ordered, because the conviction would not be reasonable in a registry without evidence,” reads the decision.
Kasirer continues to write that “instead of forcing the parties to go through pro -form procedures to achieve this result [the acquittal]Or get in the way to this result by entering a judicial stay, the fair result is that the acquittal be entered now, although there is evidence in the registry that could lead to a reasonable jury, properly instructed, to condemn [Bouvette] In a new trial. “
