|
Wrongly Convicted Database Record
|
Charge: |
Attempted Murder |
Sentence: |
2 years minus 1 day |
Years Imprisoned: |
0.75 |
Year Crime: |
1996 |
Year Convicted: |
1998 |
Year Cleared: |
2021 |
U.S. State or Country of Crime: |
Canada |
County or Region of Crime: |
Ontario |
City of Crime: |
|
Result: |
Judicially Exonerated |
Summary of Case: |
"Joyce Rita Hayman, aka Joyce Hayman, was wrongly convicted on June 5, 1998 of administering a noxious substance (cocaine) to her own five-year-old child in 1996, with the intent to endanger his life, and criminal negligence, In Ontario, Canada. Her prosecution was based on testing of two hair samples from her child by Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory, that detected the presence of cocaine. After her conviction by a bench (judge only) trial, the judge ordered a stay of proceedings for Hayman's criminal negligence conviction on the basis the essential element of bodily harm had not been proven by the prosecution. Hayman was sentenced on July 22, 1998 to two years in prison minus one day. Hayman appealed. On April 22, 1999 the Ontario Court of Appeals affirmed her convictions, but reduced to time served -- which was about nine months -- and three years probation. [R. v. Hayman (1999), 135 C.C.C. (3d) 338 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 25-26.] "Eventually, the child was adopted by another family. The appellant and her child have had one contact since 1998: a telephone call in 2018. In 2003, about four years after she was released from prison, the appellant gave birth to her second child. He was immediately apprehended by the CAS at the hospital and adopted by another family. The appellant has never had contact with her second child." In 2018 the Toronto Star newspaper published several articles by reporter Rachel Mendleson that expressed concern over Hayman's case because of questions about the reliability of testing by Motherisk DTL. On November 28, 2019 the Ontario Ct. of Appeals allowed Hayman to reopen her conviction appeal, based on new evidence related to the laboratory testing. The prosecution did not oppose Hayman's appeal, stating in court documents that there is “a reasonable basis upon which to question the validity of the conviction due to the court’s reliance on the [MDTL] evidence adduced at trial.” On April 12, 2021 the appeal court ordered Hayman's acquittal of her criminal negligence conviction based on the trial judge's finding in 1998 that the prosecution had failed to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and ordered her acquittal of administering cocaine because it was based on "faulty science." The Court stated at the conclusion of its opinion: [38] "The appellant has faced a life of challenges. At every turn, she needed help, and at every turn she did not receive it. Despite the fact that she was a young, single mother who struggled with a history of mistreatment, poverty, and serious addictions, the record reveals strong attempts on her part to deal with what she faced. This was true at the time that she was raising her young child and it is true today. Indeed, the fresh evidence indicates that the appellant stopped consuming crack cocaine several years ago. [39] We cannot right everything for this now 53-year-old appellant. In addition to many other life challenges, she lost her children, she served time in prison, and she has carried the burden of a very serious criminal conviction for almost a quarter of a century. [40] What we can do today is to bring a conclusion to the criminal justice system’s impact on her life. She deserves to, as she says, hold her “head high for the first time in a long time.” We express our sincere hope that today will constitute one step toward that end." [R. v. Hayman, 2021 ONCA 242 (Ct. of Appeal for Ontario, 4-14-2021) at para. 38-40." |
Conviction Caused By: |
|
Innocence Proved By: |
"On April 12, 2021 the appeal court ordered Hayman's acquittal of her criminal negligence conviction based on the trial judge's finding in 1998 that the prosecution had failed to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and ordered her acquittal of administering cocaine because it was based on "faulty science."" |
Defendant Aided By: |
|
Compensation Awarded: |
|
Was Perpetrator Identified? |
|
Age When Imprisoned: |
30 |
Age When Released: |
31 |
Sex: |
|
Skin/Ethnicity: |
White |
Information Source 1: |
"R. v. Hayman, 2021 ONCA 242 (Ct. of Appeal for Ontario, 4-14-2021)" |
Information Location 1: |
https://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2021/2021ONCA0242.htm |
Information Source 2: |
"Woman wrongfully convicted over flawed Motherisk evidence acquitted by Ontario court, By Rachel Mendleson (Staff Reporter), Toronto Star, April 12, 2021" |
Information Location 2: |
https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2021/04/12/a-flawed-motherisk-hair-test-led-to-her-wrongful-conviction-nearly-23-years-ago-joyce-hayman-was-just-acquitted-by-an-ontario-appeals-court-for-the-egregious-miscarriage-of-justice.html |
Information Source 3: |
|
Information Location 3: |
|
Information Source 4: |
|
Information Location 4: |
|
Information Source 5: |
|
Information Location 5: |
|
Book About Case: |
|
Book Information: |
|
Book About Case (2): |
|
Book Information (2): |
|
Movie About Case: |
|
Comments About Case: |
Innocents Database Created and Maintained by Hans Sherrer innocents@forejustice.org