can u be arrested if u kill someone whilst sleep walking?

Answer 1

You could be arrested and charged, but you could put forward the defence of automatism. In R. v. Cogdon (1950) unreported but noted in Morris, Somnambulistic Homicide: Ghosts, Spiders and North Koreans (1951) 5 Res Judicatae 29, the defendant struck her daughter on the head with an axe while sleepwalking and dreaming about North Koreans. Her movements were not voluntary, so she was acquitted. This interpretation of automatism is consistent with Lord Denning's dictum in Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (1963) AC 386, at 409:

No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily: and an involuntary act in this context – some people nowadays prefer to speak of it as ‘automatism’ – means an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing, such as an act done whilst suffering from a concussion or whilst sleepwalking
Denning provides two classes of cases which he regards as being automatistic:

But situations involving hypnotism and sleepwalking may involve apparently deliberate and purposeful conduct. For example, the English case of R v T (1990) Crim. LR 256 offered clinical evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder after a rape three days earlier to explain an armed robbery which involved her stabbing her victim and reaching into the victim’s car to take her bag. Such a disorder is closely similar in effect to that of concussion caused by a physical blow. In the Canadian case of R v Rabey (1981) 54 CCC (2d) 1, 15 a young student was rejected by his great love. He responded by hitting her on the head and choking her. He claimed to have little recollection of the event and a psychiatrist testified that his mind dissociated from his body, explaining that a person in this kind of state might be capable of performing physical acts without awareness of such actions. Dissociation can be a part of a mental disorder like in multiple personality disorder. As a result, the defence of automatism may be available for a mentally impaired defendant. As for sleepwalking itself, the Canadian case of R v Parks (1992) 75 CCC (3d) 287 exemplifies a certain judicial willingness to regard a sleepwalker as behaving as an automaton even though he had performed apparently goal-directed acts. The accused fell asleep in his living room. A few hours later he got up and drove 23 kilometres to his in-laws' home. Still asleep, he entered the house, found a knife in the kitchen and went to the bedroom where his in-laws were sleeping. He strangled and cut his father in-law, who survived the attack. The mother in-law died from the repeated stab wounds and the brutal beating. The medical experts unanimously agreed that the accused was sleepwalking and that a person in this state of mind cannot perform voluntary acts. The Supreme Court agreed and held that sleepwalking can negate the voluntary ingredient of the actus reus. The point made in these cases is that the key component of the two categories of cases identified by Lord Denning in Bratty is an accused’s inability to control their behaviour and not the way in which loss or impairment of the conscious or deliberative functions of the mind arises. Similarly, under the Swedish Penal Code, acts during sleep and unconsciousness, reflex movements, spasms and convulsions, as well as acts performed under physical force or hypnosis are generally not punishable. Moreover, omissions caused by sleep, weakness, physical numbness or anaesthesia are generally not blameworthy. The issue is whether the accused had the ability to control the behaviour, including taking early precautions to avoid loss of control. But, in English law, the ruling in R v Sullivan (1984) AC 156 held that, for the purposes of the M'Naghten Rules, a disease of the mind need have no permanence, leading many academics to suggest that sleepwalkers might well be found to be suffering from a disease of the mind with internal causes unless there was clear evidence of an external causal factor. In R v Burgess (1991) 2 WLR 1206 the Court of Appeal ruled that the defendant who wounded a woman by hitting her with a video recorder while sleepwalking, was insane under the M'Naghten Rules. Lord Lane said, "We accept that sleep is a normal condition, but the evidence in the instant case indicates that sleepwalking, and particularly violence in sleep, is not normal."

Answer 2

Yes you would get arrested but if they find out that you really were sleep walking then they'll put you down as someone with a 'medical problem'. I dont think you'd be in deep trouble or anyhting but they might send you to a rehab to get treatment n all.

So between you and me, and anyone else reading,....Who'd you kill?

Answer 3

Yes. You can be arrested. Whether or not you will be convicted is another story. The issue is whether you had the intent to kill. If you were not conscious - the answer is likely no. However, if you knew that you had a tendency to sleepwalk and act violently when sleepwalking, you may be convicted for negligent homicide.

Answer 4

I'm definite of it. Poll: Wow, beer but when I'm gonna drink the rough stuff it does not a lot topic. For the sake of the ballot I will say Vodka and Cranberries (recent ones). Wait a minute, no juice? I will need to pass with Rum and Diet Coke.

Answer 5

You would most definitely be arrested. Whether your charges would proceed to trial, and if so, whether you would be convicted is another case.

Some have won with this defence, some have not.

It is pretty hard to prove the automation.

Answer 6

You can be arrested even if you didn't kill the person and they just suspect that you did.

Answer 7

Arrested - yes
Convicted - maybe not

Answer 8

Yes. Can you prove you were sleepwalking when the murder took place? Impossible.

Answer 9

Yes.There was a case of that years ago,but the man was acquitted.

Answer 10

possible. but you would have to prove it which would be impossible anywho and you would still get arrested.