R. v. Boulet

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson and Beetz, JJ.
• Citation: (1977), 15 N.R. 541 (SCC),75 DLR (3d) 223,[1978] 1 SCR 332,15 NR 541,1976 CanLII 144 (SCC),34 CCC (2d) 397
• Date: 02 November 1976

R. v. Boulet (1977), 15 N.R. 541 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Boulet

Indexed As: R. v. Boulet

Supreme Court of Canada

Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson and Beetz, JJ.

November 2, 1976 and June 1, 1977.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of murder. The accused was convicted by a judge sitting with a jury.

On appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal the appeal was dismissed and the conviction of the accused was affirmed.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal was affirmed.

Criminal Law - Topic 5331

Evidence - Confessions - Voluntary statements and previous testimony of an accused not subject to rules regarding confessions - Whether a voir dire was required, respecting the accused's previous court testimony, to determine whether such testimony was voluntary - The accused was charged with murder - The Crown offered previous testimony by the accused at a preliminary hearing in another criminal trial - The trial judge admitted the previous testimony without a voir dire - The accused was convicted - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the conviction of the accused and held that such previous testimony by an accused in a judicial proceeding is admissible without a voir dire or evidence to show that the statements were made voluntarily - See paragraphs 16 to 30 and 70 to 84.

Criminal Law - Topic 5212

Evidence - Relevancy - Similar acts - Charge of murder - The Crown alleged that the accused was a party to a plan to shoot and kill a man and then bury the body nude and cover the body with caustic soda - The Crown in rebuttal to a defence of accident offered evidence to show that the accused led the police to a second grave which contained the body of another murder victim and that the second body was also decomposed by a caustic substance - The Supreme Court of Canada held that such similar act evidence was admissible to show a systematic course of action, premeditation and guilty intent for the purpose of rebutting the defence of accident - See paragraphs 31 to 40 and 85 to 94.

Cases Noticed:

Warickshall's case (1783), 1 Leach 4th 263, folld. [paras. 17, 71].

R. v. Baldry (1852), 2 Den. 430, folld. [paras. 17, 71].

Ibrahim v. R., [1914] A.C. 599, folld. [paras. 17, 71].

Piché v. R., [1971] S.C.R. 23, folld. [paras. 17, 71].

Powell v. R., 9 N.R. 361, folld. [paras. 17, 71].

Walker v. R., [1939] S.C.R. 214, folld. [paras. 17, 71].

R. v. Cleaveley (1966-1967), 49 C.R. 326, folld. [paras. 17, 71].

R. v. Fex (1973), 12 C.C.C.(2d) 239, folld. [paras. 17, 71].

Marshall v. R., [1961] S.C.R. 123, refd to. [paras. 17, 71].

R. v. James (1912), 19 C.C.C. 391, folld. [paras. 18, 72].

R. v. Bahrey, [1934] 1 W.W.R. 376, folld. [paras. 18, 72].

R. v. Dietrich (1971), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 49, refd to. [paras. 18, 72].

Thibodeau v. R., [1955] S.C.R. 646, refd to. [paras. 18, 72].

R. v. Coote, [1873] 4 A.C. 599, folld. [paras. 19, 73].

R. v. Brown (No. 2), 40 C.R. 90, folld. [paras. 19, 73].

R. v. Connolly and McGreevy (1895), 25 O.R. 151, folld. [paras. 19, 73].

R. v. Deakin (No. 2) (1912), 19 C.C.C. 274, folld. [paras. 19, 73].

R. v. Drew (No. 2), [1933] 4 D.L.R. 592, folld. [paras. 19, 73].

Marcotte v. R. (1949), 97 C.C.C. 310, folld. [paras. 19, 73].

John McGregor v. R. (1967), 51 C.A.R. 338, folld. [paras. 19, 73].

R. v. Scott (1856), 169 E.R. 909, folld. [paras. 21, 75].

R. v. Bateman (1866), 4 F. and F. Nisi Prius Rep. 1068, folld. [paras. 22, 76].

R. v. Hillman (1872), 12 Cox C.C. 174, folld. [paras. 22, 76].

R. v. Clark (1902), 3 O.L.R. 176, folld. [paras. 22, 76].

R. v. Lunan (1947), 3 C.R. 56, folld. [paras. 22, 76].

R. v. Mazerall (1946-1947), 2 C.R. 261, folld. [paras. 22, 76].

Tass v. R., [1947] S.C.R. 103, folld. [paras. 22, 76].

Wahlberg v. R., [1955] Q.B. 865 (Que.), refd to. [paras. 23, 77].

Lamothe v. R., [1969] Q.B. 734 (Que.), folld. [paras. 24, 78].

R. v. Tass (1946), 1 C.R. 378, folld. [paras. 24, 78].

R. v. Drouin, [1973] S.C.R. 747, folld. [paras. 24, 78].

Mackin v. Attorney General for New South Wales, [1894] A.C. 57, folld. [paras. 33, 87].

Jean-Paul Leblanc v. R., 8 N.R. 107, folld. [paras. 34, 88].

Batary v. A.G. for Sask., [1965] S.C.R. 466, folld. [paras. 39, 93].

Noor Mohamed v. R., [1949] A.C. 182, folld. [paras. 39, 93].

Kurama v. R., [1955] A.C. 197, folld. [paras. 39, 93].

Lamb's case (1791), 2 Leach 4th 552, folld. [paras. 18, 72].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd Ed., Vol. 3, page 298 [paras. 18, 72].

Counsel:

Bernard Lamarche and Michel Denis, for the appellant;

Francois Tremblay, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by MARTLAND, JUDSON, RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, DICKSON and BEETZ, JJ. at Ottawa, Ontario on November 26, 1975.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by BEETZ, J. The French language judgment of BEETZ, J. was delivered on November 2, 1976. The English language judgment of BEETZ, J. was delivered on June 1, 1977. The French language judgment of BEETZ, J. is set out below immediately following the English language judgment - See paragraphs 55 to 108.