Lewis v. The Queen, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 821 (1979)

SUPREME

COURT OF CANADA

Lewis v. The Queen, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 821

Date: 1979-06-14

James Wilbrod Lewis Appellant; and

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent.

1978: November 21; 1979: June 14.

Present: Laskin C.J. and Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

Criminal law - Murder - Motive not proven as part of Crown's case nor absence of motive proven by defence - Whether trial judge erred in failing to define "motive" and in failing to direct jury as to that concept - No error on part of trial judge in circumstances of case.

The appellant Lewis and one Santa Singh Tatlay were jointly charged with the murder of Parmjeet K. Sidhu, Tatlay's daughter, and, under a separate count, with the murder of Gurmail Singh Sidhu, her husband. The instrument which caused the deaths was an electric kettle rigged with dynamite in such a manner as to explode when plugged into an electric outlet. The kettle was sent to the couple by mail. It exploded with tragic results.

After a two-week trial before judge and jury, the two accused were found guilty. The present appeal was brought from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, dismissing an appeal by Lewis against conviction. The sole question upon which leave to appeal was granted by this Court, was whether the trial judge erred in failing to define "motive", and in failing to direct the jury as to that concept having regard to the fact that, relative to the appellant, the case for the Crown was totally devoid of such evidence.

The relevant facts of the case are summarized in the reasons for judgment at pp. 824-828.

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.

Accepting the term "motive" in a criminal law sense as meaning "ulterior intention", it is possible, upon the authorities, to formulate the following propositions: (1) As evidence, motive is always relevant and hence evi­dence of motive is admissible. (2) Motive is no part of the crime and is legally irrelevant to criminal responsi­bility. It is not an essential element of the prosecution's case as a matter of law. (3) Proved absence of motive is always an important fact in favour of the accused and ordinarily worthy of note in a charge to the jury. (4) Conversely, proved presence of motive may be an impor­tant factual ingredient in the Crown's case, notably on the issues of identity and intention, when the evidence is purely circumstantial. (5) Motive is therefore always a question of fact and evidence and the necessity of referring to motive in the charge to the jury falls within the general duty of the trial judge "to not only outline the theories of the prosecution and defence but to give the jury matters of evidence essential in arriving at a just conclusion." (6) Each case will turn on its own unique set of circumstances. The issue of motive is always a matter of degree.

Applying the foregoing propositions t...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here