The BC Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal of a Vancouver Island woman convicted of manslaughter in the 2021 shooting death of her son, ruling that the legal standard applied at trial was appropriate and sufficiently contextualized.
Samantha Jesselynn Dittmer was found guilty in October 2023 of manslaughter by careless use of a firearm in the death of her son, Jesse McPhee. She was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of four years’ imprisonment in February 2024.
Dittmer appealed the conviction, arguing that the jury instructions failed to adequately consider her history of trauma and the dysfunctional nature of her relationship with McPhee.
In a unanimous decision released Monday, a three-judge panel led by Justice Willcock rejected that argument and upheld the conviction, finding no legal error in the trial judge’s application of the “reasonable person” standard.
“While the objective fault component of the offence of manslaughter is premised on uniform societal standards of behaviour and does not permit consideration of subjective intent or knowledge, it is sufficiently contextualized to permit consideration of all factors that might have informed or affected the care exercised by a reasonable person,” wrote Willcock.
The incident occurred on August 29th, 2021, at Dittmer’s Port Alberni home.
According to trial evidence, McPhee—who had a history of erratic and sometimes violent behaviour—was living in a downstairs suite with his partner. He had stored several firearms in the house, including a loaded rifle under Dittmer’s bed.
On the day of the shooting, Dittmer said she was emotionally distressed and retrieved the rifle with the intent of returning it to her son and asking him to secure it properly.
Upon entering his suite, she claimed McPhee suddenly charged at her, causing the gun to discharge while pressed against his chest.
She maintained that she was unaware the rifle was loaded and that the discharge was accidental. However, she also admitted to past firearms training and to not checking the weapon for ammunition.
Dittmer’s lawyers argued that the jury should have been told to consider her past trauma and difficult relationship with her son when deciding if she acted carelessly.
They felt the current legal system doesn’t leave enough room for people’s real-life experiences, especially in situations involving family conflict or abuse.
But the court didn’t agree. It said the law sets the same safety standard for everyone when it comes to handling dangerous things like firearms.
Unless someone is completely unable to understand the risk, personal struggles or mental health history don’t lower that standard.
The appeal also challenged the trial judge’s response to a jury question about considering the “dysfunctional, co-dependent, or abusive” relationship between Dittmer and her son.
The judge clarified that the jury could consider that context but only as it might influence what a reasonable person would have done, not what Dittmer herself intended or believed.
Justice Willcock concluded that the jury had been properly instructed in line with settled law and that the trial judge’s response “was adequate and not erroneous.”
The court said that even if the rules were changed to consider Dittmer’s past trauma, it wouldn’t have changed the result. She still brought a loaded gun into a tense situation, and that required extra care.
“Because of the trauma and her son’s unpredictable behaviour, she should have been more careful — not less,” the ruling said.
Since there were no mistakes in how the trial was handled, the appeal was dismissed, with all three judges in agreement.
