You don’t look at a toilet and expect to find a live child in it...

“If the child is dead, you can’t endanger its life or health,” said Ajay Krishan, making his closing argument in P.A. Court of Queen’s Bench.

“It was the wrong thing for April to do but it’s not a criminal act.”
- is not criminal act? Killing babies is not criminal anymore?

Here is the full story:
==============================================================

PRINCE ALBERT — Leaving her newborn boy alone in a toilet in a public washroom may have been morally wrong, but it was not criminal, the lawyer for a woman accused of child abandonment said Thursday.

Ajay Krishan said during closing arguments in the case Thursday that April Dawn Halkett was scared and in shock when she left the baby boy head first in the toilet at the Prince Albert Walmart on May 21, 2007. Halkett said she thought the baby was dead.

"It was the wrong thing for April to do, but it's not a criminal act," Krishan said Thursday. "She thought she was leaving a fetus. . . . Why would she leave a live child to die?"

Halkett, 22, has pleaded not guilty. Her trial wrapped up Thursday at Prince Albert Court of Queen's Bench.

The name of the child cannot be revealed due to a publication ban.

Crown prosecutor Jennifer Claxton-Viczko said outside court Thursday the case involves "the worst case of child abandonment there could be."

"A mother has a responsibility to her children. . . . All that she had to do was pick the baby up out of the toilet."

During closing arguments, Claxton-Viczko said Halkett tried to cover up the baby's birth by cleaning blood off the bathroom stall and covering him with folded pieces of toilet paper. Halkett never took the baby out of the toilet to check for breathing or a pulse, she added.

"What she does do is just as important as what she doesn't do," Claxton-Viczko said.

"What does she think is going to happen to a five- to six-pound baby that's been left in the toilet?"

Claxton-Viczko also questioned why Halkett never asked for help during the delivery, even after shoppers and store staff offered to help. The defence has suggested Halkett was disoriented after the delivery, but Claxton-Viczko said she didn't have any trouble getting out of the store or finding her way back to her friends' vehicle in the parking lot.

"There's an attempt to paint a pretty picture of what happened," she added. "But, in fact, that picture is really quite ugly."

During the trial, court heard Halkett's boyfriend of five years, who Halkett had told police was the father of the baby, was ruled out after DNA testing. The baby's real father was not made clear during the trial, but Claxton-Viczko said it could be the reason Halkett left her newborn in the toilet.

Halkett, who was 20 years old at the time of the baby's birth in Walmart, has been described as intelligent by her family, said Claxton-Viczko.

"She's not a child," she said.

"As a matter of fact, she's the mother who has an obligation to a child."

The facts of the case are unique and there is limited case law to refer to, Claxton-Viczko said outside court.

Justice Neil Gabrielson is expected to hand down his verdict June 24.

Should Halkett be found guilty, Claxton-Viczko said she would ask for jail time.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

================================================
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/Health/Saskatchewan+Walmart+mother+commit+criminal...

Please read the full story. Looks like nowadays lawyers can make anyone innocent.... Where this world goes??? :(