Court of Appeal

Summary: The issue at trial was whether the killings were manslaughter or second degree murder. The appellant raises some 13 grounds of appeal in his factum: 1) Intoxication may negate the common-sense inference:The trial judge instructed that persons normally intend the natural consequences of their actions. The complaint is that the trial judge did not specifically tell the jury that they were not to draw such an inference if they had a reasonable doubt with respect to the intent to commit murder as a result of intoxication by propane sniffing. 2) Intoxication may affect foresight: The complaint is that the trial judge did not specifically tell the jury that in dealing with s. 229(a)(ii), the Crown must prove subjective intent to cause bodily harm, and subjective knowledge that the bolidy harm is likely to cause death. 3) No intention means no crime: the compliant here is that the wording of the instructions to the jury may have left the jury with the impression that even if the defence of intoxication had been made out, the jury did not necessarily have to acquit and might convict. 4) There is no preliminary credibility test: the complaint is that the judges instruction to the jury may have had the effect of instructing the jruy to remove evidence which did not pass a credibility test. 5) Exculpatory protions of an accused statement need only raise a doubt: The complaint is that the trial judge did not tell the jury that they were entitled to assess the statement made by the appellant as any other evidence, and that the exulpatory parts might leave them in a reasonable doubt with respect to intent. 6) absence of motive is improtant: the complaint is that there was no proven motive and the absence of such a motive should have been clearly pointed out to the jury as being to the credit of the appellant. 7) a jury does not determin an expert's competence: the crown concedes that the trial judge erred when he instructed the jury to decide whether or not a witness was an competent in his field of expertise. 8) murder requires more than carelessness: the judge used the words recklessness and carelessness interchangeably, howver it must be remembered that in this case the entire charge had to be translated into Inuktituk, the translation of the word reckless in to Inuktituk would be more understandable and eaiser to translate 9) probable guilt is insufficient: the complaint is that during the charge, a juror may understand that he or she must have a logical or rational explanation in oreder to have reasonable doubt and sencondly, that probable guilt might be sufficient for a conviction, 10) the presumption of innocence should not be diluted: the complaint is that in the charge to the jury, the trial judge distracted from the jury's real duty, namely to decide whether the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, 11) a trial judge must relate the law to the evidence:, 12) copy of the Criminal Code sections should not be give to a jury, 13) allowing appellant to make submissions regarding notes received from the jury
Abstract: Conviction appeal
Decision: Appeal dismissed
Appeal: leave to appeal to S.C.C. dismissed January 13, 1994
Subjects: Criminal law - Murder and related offences - Second degree murder
Criminal law - Juries - Charge to jury