R. v. Allen (G.W.),

• Judge: Belzil,Hunt,Watson
• Neutral Citation: 2009 ABCA 341
• Subject Matter: CRIMINAL LAW
• Citation: 2009 ABCA 341,(2009), 464 A.R. 208 (CA),464 AR 208,(2009), 464 AR 208 (CA),464 A.R. 208
• Date: 16 October 2009
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

R. v. Allen (G.W.) (2009), 464 A.R. 208 (CA);

      467 W.A.C. 208

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] A.R. TBEd. OC.109

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. George William Allen (appellant)

(0703-0005-A; 2009 ABCA 341)

Indexed As: R. v. Allen (G.W.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Hunt and Watson, JJ.A., and Belzil, J.(ad hoc)

October 16, 2009.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of first degree murder by a jury. The accused appealed, submitting that the trial judge erred in leaving with the jury evidence that the accused expressed no remorse over the victim's death and misdirected the jury on the accused's post-offence conduct.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Hunt, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 4399.9

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions re flight and other post-offence behaviour of accused - The accused killed the victim, cleaned up any evidence of the killing, and buried the body on his farm property - An undercover police operation yielded an admission by the accused that he killed the victim because of his frustration and aggravation over the victim's refusal to pay him monies owed - The accused was charged with first degree murder - At trial, the accused admitted causing the victim's death, but claimed it was in self-defence (victim attacked him with a chain saw) - The accused further denied the truth of his statements to the undercover officers (i.e., he was boasting to impress them) - A jury convicted the accused of first degree murder - The accused appealed, submitting that the trial judge erred in directing the jury respecting evidence of post-offence conduct, including concealing the body and a lack of remorse as manifested by his mean-spirited statements about the victim - The jury was instructed that they could consider post-offence conduct, along with all of the evidence, to determine the accused's state of mind at the time of the conduct and at the time of the killing - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - There was no error in leaving the post-offence conduct evidence with the jury - It was not merely evidence of "demeanour" - It was evidence from which the jury could infer animus, contrary to the accused's testimony that he and the victim remained friends in spite of their financial dispute - It was relevant to the accused's credibility and to the determination of whether the murder was planned and deliberate - The court held that "the consistency of the pre-killing animus, thinking and preparation with the post-killing conduct was a powerful rationale for the jury to find planning and deliberation" - The jury charge was conspicuously fair, balanced and accurate on post-offence conduct - The jury was repeatedly advised to give the accused the benefit of doubt when drawing inferences and that any inference had to be consistent with the accused's guilt and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion - See paragraphs 1 to 93.

Criminal Law - Topic 5211

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Flight and other post-offence behaviour of accused - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4399.9 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5316

Evidence and witnesses - Inferences - Of guilt - From conduct - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4399.9 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. W.J.D., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 523; 369 N.R. 225; 302 Sask.R. 4; 411 W.A.C. 4; 2007 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Layton (C.A.) (2009), 245 Man.R.(2d) 26; 466 W.A.C. 26; 390 N.R. 340; 2009 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. W.A.P. (2009), 460 A.R. 103; 462 W.A.C. 103; 2009 NWTCA 7, refd to. [para. 62].

Bigaouette v. R., [1927] S.C.R. 112; 47 C.C.C. 271, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Griffin (J.) et al. (2009), 388 N.R. 334; 2009 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Khela (G.S.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 104; 383 N.R. 279; 265 B.C.A.C. 31; 446 W.A.C. 31; 2009 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Lawes (D.) (2006), 207 O.A.C. 354; 206 C.C.C.(3d) 15 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2006), 363 N.R. 395; 228 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Jaw (S.G.) (2008), 432 A.R. 297; 424 W.A.C. 297; 2008 NUCA 2, affd. (2009), 464 A.R. 149; 393 N.R. 246; 2009 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Jacquard (C.O.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314; 207 N.R. 246; 157 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 462 A.P.R. 161, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. James (W.A.) et al., [2009] 1 S.C.R. 146; 383 N.R. 329; 273 N.S.R.(2d) 388; 872 A.P.R. 388; 2009 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Smith (N.W.) - see R. v. James (W.A.) et al.

R. v. Karaibrahimovic (J.J.) (2002), 303 A.R. 181; 273 W.A.C. 181; 2002 ABCA 102, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Glover (K.J.) (2003), 339 A.R. 318; 312 W.A.C. 318; 2003 ABCA 377, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Duguay, 2009 QCCA 1130, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. K.M.E. (2009), 389 N.R. 20; 272 B.C.A.C. 1; 459 W.A.C. 1; 2009 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Van (D.) (2009), 388 N.R. 200; 251 O.A.C. 295; 2009 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Royz (E.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 423; 388 N.R. 1; 251 O.A.C. 397; 2009 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Dhuna (S.R.S.) (2008), 425 A.R. 211; 418 W.A.C. 211; 2008 ABCA 34, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Rojas (M.A.) et al., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 111; 380 N.R. 211; 260 B.C.A.C. 258; 439 W.A.C. 258; 2008 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 64].

Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1935] A.C. 462 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 66].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard, [1920] A.C. 479 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Seymour (J.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 252; 197 N.R. 81; 76 B.C.A.C. 1; 125 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Anderson (W.R.) (2009), 448 A.R. 165; 447 W.A.C. 165; 2009 ABCA 67, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Enright (R.L.) (2009), 460 A.R. 359; 462 W.A.C. 359; 2009 ABCA 236, refd to. [para. 67].

Hodge's Case, Re (1838), 2 Lew. 227; 168 E.R. 1136, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Cooper, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 860; 14 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Figueroa (N.) et al. (2008), 233 O.A.C. 176; 232 C.C.C.(3d) 51; 2008 ONCA 106, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Levert (G.) (2001), 150 O.A.C. 208; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 71 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Baltrusaitis (V.C.) (2002), 155 O.A.C. 249; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 539 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Samuels (J.G.) (2005), 198 O.A.C. 109; 196 C.C.C.(3d) 403 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. White (M.J.) (2009), 448 A.R. 305; 447 W.A.C. 305; 243 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2009 ABCA 115, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Baron and Wertman (1976), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 525 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Gould (S.) (2008), 244 O.A.C. 176; 2008 ONCA 855, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. White (R.G.) and Côté (Y.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72; 227 N.R. 326; 112 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Khan (M.A.) (2007), 230 O.A.C. 174; 2007 ONCA 779, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Arcangioli (G.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 129; 162 N.R. 280; 69 O.A.C. 26, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Chambers (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1293; 119 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Marinaro (G.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 462; 197 N.R. 21; 91 O.A.C. 117, reving. (1994), 76 O.A.C. 44; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 74 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. MacKinnon (T.N.) et al. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 258; 132 C.C.C.(3d) 545 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Poitras (J.P.) (2002), 154 O.A.C. 25; 57 O.R.(3d) 538; 1 C.R.(6th) 366 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Teske (P.) (2005), 202 O.A.C. 239; 32 C.R.(6th) 103 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Loughlin (J.), [2006] O.A.C. Uned. 24; 204 C.C.C.(3d) 314; 68 W.C.B.(2d) 363 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2007), 372 N.R. 396; 238 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Almarales (A.) (2008), 244 O.A.C. 127; 2008 ONCA 692, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Rodrigue (K.) (2007), 245 B.C.A.C. 19; 405 W.A.C. 19; 2007 YKCA 9, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Escobar-Benavidez (E.D.) (2005), 211 B.C.A.C. 260; 349 W.A.C. 260; 2005 BCCA 211, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Diu (A.B.) et al. (2000), 133 O.A.C. 201; 49 O.R.(3d) 40 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Belance (C.M.) (2007), 221 O.A.C. 161; 2007 ONCA 123, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Dickson (W.R.) (2006), 232 B.C.A.C. 86; 385 W.A.C. 86; 2006 BCCA 490, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Song (A.) (2008), 433 A.R. 219; 429 W.A.C. 219; 2008 ABCA 260, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Winsor (C.G.), [2009] A.R. Uned. 143; 2009 ABCA 319, refd to. [para. 103].

Counsel:

D.C. Marriott, for the respondent;

H.E. Wolch, Q.C., for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on April 30, 2009, before Hunt and Watson, JJ.A., and Belzil, J.(ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On October 16, 2009, the following memorandum of judgment was delivered by the Court of Appeal and the following opinions were filed:

Watson, J.A., and Belzil, J.(ad hoc) - see paragraphs 1 to 93;

Hunt, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 94 to 118.