Digest: R v Smith, 2018 SKCA 42

• Date: June 18, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKCA 42

Docket Number: CACR 2783 , CA17153

Court: Court of Appeal

Date: 2018-06-18

Judges:

• Jackson
• Caldwell
• Schwann

Subjects:

• Criminal Law � Murder � Second Degree Murder � Conviction � Appeal
• Evidence � Unsavoury Witnesses � Vetrovec Warning � Charge to Jury

Digest: The appellant had been found guilty of second degree murder following a trial before a judge and jury. He appealed on the ground that the trial judge had failed to give the jury a Vetrovec warning regarding the testimony of his former common law spouse (S.S.) and a witness who had been his friend (W.D.) who was the source of the gun used in the shooting of the victim. The appellant�s trial counsel had initially identified the need for the judge to issue the warning because W.D. had an interest in the outcome because there were outstanding charges against him and because there was the potential that S.S.would be charged too, she would also have an interest in the case as well. During the pre-charge conference with defence counsel and the Crown, the trial judge noted that in giving the warning to the jury he would also have to convey a summary of the Crown�s confirmatory evidence. The defence counsel then withdrew his application. The victim had been a friend of the appellant. According to S.S.�s testimony, the appellant and the victim had pre-arranged a meeting in an abandoned farmyard. The victim worked as an automated teller machine (ATM) technician and as part of his job, he travelled between ATMs carrying cash. S.S. did not see what happened between the two men but heard two gunshots and then saw the appellant and the victim point guns at each other. She saw the victim on his knees pleading with the appellant and offering money in exchange for his life. The appellant instructed her to collect the money and the victim�s cellphone and place them in his truck and while she was doing so, she heard another gunshot and saw the victim lying face down and the appellant standing over him holding a gun. As she and the appellant left the scene, the appellant gave her the victim�s gun. The appellant hid the other guns and the money at another farm site and then dumped the victim�s cellphone and ammunition in a farm field. Apart from the handguns, none of the other items were ever recovered. The witness remained in a relationship with the appellant for another four years following the crime until November 2013. She was contacted by the...