R. v. Adams (L.J.) et al., [2016] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AU.030

• Judge: Newbury, Harris and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: July 28, 2016
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: [2016] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AU.030;2016 BCCA 330

R. v. Adams (L.J.), [2016] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AU.030

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for B.C.A.C. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2016] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AU.030

Regina (respondent) v. Colin Raymond Correia (appellant)

(CA41529)

Regina (respondent) v. Lorne William Murray Carry (appellant)

(CA41666; 2016 BCCA 330)

Indexed As: R. v. Adams (L.J.) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Newbury, Harris and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A.

July 28, 2016.

Summary:

The accused (Correia and Carry) were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to murder a rival drug dealer and counselling others to commit the murder. A co-accused (Adams) was found not guilty of conspiracy, but guilty of counselling. Correia and Carry appealed their convictions. Adams did not. The alleged plan was never carried out, although after the conspiracy ended there was a double murder of the two residents of the home where the intended target previously lived. It was made clear to the jury that the accused had nothing to do with that double murder. At trial out-of-court statements by alleged co-conspirators were provisionally admitted and the trial judge gave preliminary instructions to the jury on the limited use of this evidence. The Crown chose to rely on direct evidence and not rely on the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule. The accused's counsel did not object to the trial judge not instructing the jury on the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule. On appeal, the accused argued that: (1) the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the limited use it could make of the actions and statements of other co-conspirators; (2) the jury should not have heard evidence about the double homicide and failed to caution the jury that this evidence could not be used to determine the accused's guilt; and (3) the trial judge misdirected the jury on the requisite intent for conspiracy and counselling.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The trial judge did not err in not instructing the jury on the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule and the jury was properly instructed on the limited use it could make of the provisionally admitted evidence. The failure to give the jury a limiting instruction on the evidence of the double murder did not prejudice the accused, as both the Crown and the accused's counsel made it clear that the accused had nothing to do with those murders. Finally, the jury was properly instructed on the requisite intent for both conspiracy and counselling.

Editor's Note: A publication was imposed under s. 486.5 of the Criminal Code restricting the publication, broadcasting or transmission in any way of evidence that could identify the undercover police officers involved in the investigation of the accused, including any pseudonyms used by the undercover police officers. This publication ban applies indefinitely unless otherwise ordered.

Criminal Law - Topic 2647

Conspiracies - Elements of offence - See paragraphs 76 to 90.

Criminal Law - Topic 2673

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Conspiracies - Jury charge - See paragraphs 24 to 69.

Criminal Law - Topic 2682

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Conspiracies - Conspirator's exception to hearsay rule - See paragraphs 24 to 69.

Criminal Law - Topic 2762

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Counselling another to commit offence - Elements (incl. actus reus and mens rea) - See paragraphs 91 to 96.

Criminal Law - Topic 2765

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Counselling another to commit offence - Jury charge - See paragraphs 91 to 96.

Criminal Law - Topic 4354

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding pleas or evidence of witnesses, co-accused and accomplices - See paragraphs 24 to 69.

Criminal Law - Topic 4379.2

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding evidence admissible for limited purpose - See paragraphs 24 to 69.

Criminal Law - Topic 5209

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Prejudicial evidence - See paragraphs 70 to 75.

Counsel:

G. DelBigio, Q.C., and L. Sturgess, for the appellant Correia;

J.R. Ray and R. Thirkell, for the appellant Carry;

M. Ainslie, Q.C., for the respondent.

These appeals were heard on April 26, 2016, at Vancouver, B.C., before Newbury, Harris and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On July 28, 2016, Stromberg-Stein, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.