• Print
  • Send to a friend
  • Comment (28)
  •  

Mary Beth Harshbarger found not guilty

Mary Beth Harshbarger reacts to her lawyer after being found not guilty today in Grand Falls-Windsor. — Transcontinental Media photo

Mary Beth Harshbarger reacts to her lawyer after being found not guilty today in Grand Falls-Windsor. — Transcontinental Media photo

Published on October 1, 2010
Published on October 1, 2010
Topics :
Buchans Junction , Pennsylvania , Grand Falls-Windsor

Mary Beth Harshbarger was found not guilty today of criminal negligence causing death in the shooting death of her husband while on a hunting trip outside Buchans Junction in September 2006.

Harshbarger, 45, from Meshoppen, Pennsylvania, has always claimed she thought her husband — Mark Harshbarger — was a bear.

Justice Richard LeBlanc handed down the verdict this morning in Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court in Grand Falls-Windsor. Harshbarger was extradited to Grand Falls-Windsor earlier this year to answer to the charge.

In a lengthy ruling, Leblanc concluded that the Crown failed to prove Harshbarger displayed a complete disregard for the safety of others, and that the death was “a result of an accident and nothing more.”

Harshbarger did not speak to media following the ruling. Her lawyer, Karl Inder, however, said she simply wanted to return home to be with her children.

Mary Beth, Mark and their two young children, and Mark's brother Barry Harshbarger, were on a hunting trip outside Buchans Junction when Mark was killed Sept. 14, 2006.

The facts of the case state Mary Beth was sitting in the back of a Chevy pickup with her children at her side and armed with a rifle, on a logging road on the evening of Sept. 14, 2006, waiting while Mark and a local hunting guide walked through the nearby spruce woods in the hopes of flushing out a black bear.

At the time, Barry was at a hunter's blind, elsewhere in the wooded area.

The sun had already set, and as Mark and the guide walked back toward the truck, the guide stopped to urinate in the woods. Mark wandered ahead of him, in dark clothing, without an orange hunting hat or vest. As he emerged from the clearing, Mary Beth told police she saw a dark shape that she believed was a bear, and fired.

The Harshbarger family, including three of Mark's siblings, has insisted for years the shooting was deliberate. They say Mary Beth is an experienced hunter and an expert markswoman who knew precisely what she was looking at that day.

 

Comments

  • Username
    Grace - Vancouver Island
    - January 17, 2012 at 04:35:37

    I watched both the CBC Fifth Estate and Dateline stories. What confuses me is the story around Mary Beth right after she killed her husband. Fifth Estate reported that due to a foot blister, Mary Beth never went to his body after the shooting. Dateline said a hunting guide prevented her from going to the body? Which version is the truth? Weird if she really loved him that she wouldn't find a way to get to his body. I have never killed a husband, but I imagine if I did I would run to his body in shock! In shock and awe (bad joke!)

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Karen
    - October 23, 2011 at 05:24:39

    His family has obviously gone way, way overboard to try to prove this woman guilty of an incident they never witnessed. Their opinions of relationships have absolutely nothing to do with it. They are guilty of judging another person falsely. Sure ain't biblical.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Brandon King
    - October 8, 2010 at 22:11:15

    I am a hunter. When I learned to hunt I learned some cardinal rules that were broken by this seasoned hunter that resulted in the death of a human being. Firstly, you "never" rasie your hunting arms after the sun has gone down. Secondly, you do not point your gun towards the known entrance and exit paths of where your hunting buddies are located, especially if you are waiting for them after a hunt. Lastly, you do not pull the trigger on a target unless you are 100 % sure of what it is! Mary Beth broke all of the rules but she was a seasoned hunter ? Perhaps she was sure of her target. Obviously by not adhering to the strict education given to and learned by all hunters Mary Beth "was" negligent and it did cause the death of another! The crown did a lousy job of proving the case. If she did not murder her husband she was certainly responsible for his death! Responsibility with no accountability should not hold up in a court of law.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    kay
    - October 3, 2010 at 21:17:55

    Congrats Marybeth,be happy and enjoy your life with your kids,they are all that matter!Keep your head up your a great Mom and a good person!Don't worry you will be old news soon,the news papers,news and people will pick someone else to say things about!

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Keith
    - October 3, 2010 at 14:30:09

    Justice system failed again. Murderer is free. Shoot a moose.....life in prison. Wife shoots huband.........good job..go back to USA and enjoy your life. SO SAD but TRUE.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    dico j.
    - October 3, 2010 at 02:02:38

    she got away with murder..she is suppose to be an experience hunter..shooting at a figure in the dark when she knew her husband and the guide were in those woods. she knew exactly what she was doing...GUILTY!

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    shirley
    - October 1, 2010 at 23:34:00

    I agree, it is over and let her get on with her life such as it may be. She should not have fired at that time of day being an experienced hunter. Her husband was just as experienced and should have known better to have been wearing an orange vest and cap. I'll even go further to say that no one should be allowed to hunt in the woods without the orange vest and hat on at all times. It could have been the other way round and her husband could have shot her given the relationship with her brother-in-law, Even if she was found quilty, she would be free just the same as the time she spent in prison would go towards her sentence, She has to live with the fact for the rest of her life that she took another person's life, namely her children's father, either accidently or on purpose, only she and her God know's the truth which it is.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Jimmie no front teeth
    - October 1, 2010 at 18:53:10

    That sound in the background is banjos playing: binga-bing-bing-bing. Duelling banjos to seranade her home to the backwoods of the Appalacians. Let's hope she and her itchy trigger finger stay away from Newfoundland forever. Don't y'all ever come back now, y'hear!

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    My opinion
    - October 1, 2010 at 16:49:25

    The charge was criminal negligence causing death - how is it ok to shoot at something if you don't know what it is? This man was killed because of her negligence and she should have been found guilty of the charge. Another Newfie joke of a court case!

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Pearl
    - October 1, 2010 at 16:43:39

    None so blind as HE (yes, you, MEN) who will not see: it's open season, and the target is YOU

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Jack
    - October 1, 2010 at 15:49:21

    If the roles were reversed maximum sentence, that's how marxism works

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Roderick B
    - October 1, 2010 at 15:39:53

    I am glad this case is over and the verdict is one I thought it would be from the very beginning.Accidents happen daily around the world and this was a most definite accident.One parent dead is more than enough for these poor children to endure. Placing Mrs. Harshbarger behind bars will not bring your son back.It was a terrible tragedy that went wrong I think.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Neutral
    - October 1, 2010 at 15:22:13

    I'm not really sure how to feel about this verdict. On one hand, it is believable that it was just an accident, although I do have to agree with Christine that she shouldn't have shot at any target at that time of day. The part of the whole situation that made me really think that maybe it wasn't an accident was when it was revealed by Mark's father a while back that she started a romantic relationship with one Mark's brothers. It just seemed a little suspicious to me. If it was truly an accident, I am glad that the children have there mother back. It is tragic enough to lose one parent let alone have both taken from you.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    darls
    - October 1, 2010 at 15:15:16

    Newfoundland justice system at it's best .....my god how could there be no evidence ...seems pretty clear to me....sign the check Danny...let's see....6 or 7 months.....=....6 or 7 million......someone needs to get some comptent people in our justice system....

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Derek
    - October 1, 2010 at 15:14:54

    Was the shooting deliberate??? Probably not. Was there carelessness on Mary Beth Harshbarger's part???? I definitely think so. Anybody who claims tio be an 'experienced' hunter and 'expert markswoman' should have most certainly exercised a much greater degree of care and discretion before firing her weapon. A conviction on a careless use of a firearm charge should have been the very least this woman should have received.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    nasty nate
    - October 1, 2010 at 14:40:14

    Now was this just not the exact same waste of time and money I said it was going to be? What's the bill to the tax payers for this?

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Louis Humphreys
    - October 1, 2010 at 14:06:38

    Well...she knew what she was doing afterall - she's gotten away with murder.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Huh??
    - October 1, 2010 at 14:02:19

    'the Crown failed to prove Harshbarger displayed a complete disregard for the safety of others'. That's crazy, she knew there were people in the woods, and her defense is that she saw something, wasn't sure what it was but shot anyway, and that's not disregard for others. The guide is lucky that nature called or he'd be dead instead. There must be some kind of intellectual deficiency required to be a member of our justice system.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    California Pete
    - October 1, 2010 at 13:59:06

    I told you so in an earlier comment it is like the movie " DIVORCE ITALIAN STYLE " It was neglegens so some extended time in jail woud have been apropiat therefor now I think I will move back to newfy land if I ever want a divorce. And then with no Jury ??

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    WS
    - October 1, 2010 at 13:30:39

    This is insane! You shoot a rifle in the dark at a target you can't identify and it's considered an "accident?" What if I got behind the wheel of a car and drove through an intersection with my eyes closed? Also an accident? This woman is a murderer, plain and simple.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    AK
    - October 1, 2010 at 13:02:40

    Good for you! Now you can get on with your life and take care of your children! Hope you can find peace now.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Amy Harshbarger Sward
    - October 1, 2010 at 12:38:22

    The Crown may have let her walk away from what she has done but know that someday she will answer to God, the judge of all judges, for her actions... and I do not believe he will be so quick to let her go free without paying for her actions.

    Submit a comment

    • Username
      RDC
      - October 2, 2010 at 20:35:54

      I wonder what the ruling would of been if it was Visa Versa? Mark shooting Mary Beth and collecting over a half a million and so on?

  • Username
    Christine
    - October 1, 2010 at 12:26:07

    Finally this woman can go home to her children!! I hope the Crown lets this case rest!! The evidence was clear to me that she should not have shot at that time of day and I am sure she regrets that dcision. But at the end of the day there was no evidence to support a conviction.

    Submit a comment

    • Username
      Holyrood Bear Hunter
      - October 1, 2010 at 14:09:10

      My wife and I hunt bear in central Newfoundland. Due to this verdict I will be sure that we are on good terms before going on any more hunting trips. There is no way in hell that experienced, ethical hunters should or would shoot at "black masses" especially knowing that loved ones are walking in the woods somewhere nearby. This sets a very dangerous precedent with the courts that if you want to "off" your spouse or hunting buddy just wait till it's near dark and give it to 'em. No need to identify your target or to wait a few minutes to see if the bear is female with cubs in tow or even what type of animal it is. Basically it's a licence to kill.......anything without facing any consequences. Just kill it and see what it is after it's down. This woman is guilty of a crime whether she intended to kill her husband or not. The only way she should have gotten away with this is if her husband had been wearing a bear costume, then she could say she thought he was a bear. IDENTIFY YOUR TARGET

    • Username
      NLgirl
      - October 1, 2010 at 15:34:07

      How can someone mistake their husband for a bear??? She's guilty!!

    • Username
      Elrando
      - October 1, 2010 at 23:23:11

      When you're shooting a gun aren't you supposed to "know" what you're shooting at, not just "think" you know. This is rediculous, not even negligence, completely rediculous.

    • Username
      Randy
      - October 2, 2010 at 07:58:43

      WOW! Druken, Dalton, Murrin, apparently they were the wrong sex!!! No manslaughter?? Not guilty of murder, but guilty of shooting him>> Great place to go to trial, Nfld., if you're a woman (Shirley Turner lookin down at this one???)

Submit a comment

Submit a comment (we keep all emails private)
Agreement

We ask that users remain courteous. You may not post insulting, discriminatory or inappropriate content, which may be removed at our discretion. We are not responsible for user content and opinions. Use of this site as well as content submission & ownership are governed by our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.

Member organizations should be non-profit in nature, and promote legal activities. Any organization found promoting illegal activities or commercial products or services will be deleted from the site.

I agree with these conditions.

Advertising

Newsletter

Please enter your email to receive our free newsletter

Subscribe to news alerts
loading...

Tely Twitter

Advertising