R. v. Briscoe (M.E.), (2012) 532 A.R. 48 (QB)

• Judge: Yamauchi, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 16, 2012
• Citations: (2012), 532 A.R. 48 (QB);2012 ABQB 239

R. v. Briscoe (M.E.) (2012), 532 A.R. 48 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. AP.081

Her Majesty the Queen v. Michael Erin Briscoe (100723519Q1; 2012 ABQB 239)

Indexed As: R. v. Briscoe (M.E.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Yamauchi, J.

April 11, 2012.

Summary:

The accused was charged with two counts of first degree murder, aggravated sexual assault and kidnapping. The Crown's theory was that the accused was guilty either as a principal offender or as a party to the offences.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found the accused guilty of one count of first degree murder, aggravated sexual assault and kidnapping. Although the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused directly caused the victim's death, the accused was guilty as a party to the offences for aiding those persons who actually committed the offences. The court acquitted the accused of the first degree murder of the second victim, as the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused either directly caused the death or aided in its commission.

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 2744

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Parties to offences - What constitutes aiding and abetting - The victim was lured to an isolated golf course under false pretences with the intention of murdering her - The victim was first sexually assaulted - The accused was charged with first degree murder, aggravated sexual assault and kidnapping as a principal offender or as a party to the offences - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found the accused guilty as a party for "aiding" the principal offenders notwithstanding that he did not directly cause the victim's death - The accused knew the principal offender (Laboucan) intended to lure and kill the victim - The accused transported the group to a destination known to him and Laboucan ahead of time - The accused knew that Laboucan was capable of killing, as he was present when the principal offender similarly lured and killed another victim two days earlier - He knew the stated intent to kill someone was not an idle threat - Respecting the murder and kidnapping, the accused aided the principal offenders by transporting the group to the planned murder location with knowledge that they were not going to a party or rave as falsely represented to the victim by Laboucan and that Laboucan's plan was to kill the victim - Respecting the murder, the accused also aided Laboucan by providing the tools used as murder weapons - Respecting the sexual assault, the accused aided Laboucan by trying to calm the victim down prior to the assault so that Laboucan could rape her and to try to prevent any third parties from hearing her screams - See paragraphs 464 to 580.

Criminal Law - Topic 2744

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Parties to offences - What constitutes aiding and abetting - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "a person is not guilty of an offence merely because he or she is present at the scene of the crime and does nothing to prevent it ... Aiding and abetting require something more than just standing by and watching a person commit an offence. An onlooker does not aid or abet, unless that person's presence actually encourages or in some manner assists the principal offender" - See paragraphs 435 to 436.

Criminal Law - Topic 2744

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Parties to offences - What constitutes aiding and abetting - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "'aiding' means to assist, help, or facilitate an offence, or to make commission of the offence easier for the principal offender. The Crown need not prove that the principal offender and the aider had a mutual and express agreement in relation to the offence. Rather, the intent to assist may be disclosed by the parties' conduct. ... It does not even matter that the principal offender was unaware that the aider was helping him to commit the offence. What the Crown must prove is that the aider's act in fact helped or aided the principal offender in committing the offences. The mens rea, or mental element, for aiding under Criminal Code s. 21(1)(b) is 'for the purpose of'. ... this language is synonymous with 'intent to'. Intent includes both direct intent (means to bring about prohibited circumstance or consequence) and indirect/oblique intent (does not necessarily act to produce the prohibited circumstance or consequence, but sees the prohibited circumstance/consequence as certain or virtually certain to occur as a result of his act or omission ... subjective recklessness is not proof that conduct is 'for the purpose of aiding'. A court can find that the accused's conduct aided the principal offender, even if the principal offender could have committed the offences without the accused's acts of assistance." - See paragraphs 441 to 443.

Criminal Law - Topic 2746

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Parties to offences - What constitutes abetting - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "'Abet' means to encourage or to support the principal offender while the principal offender commits an offence. The actus reus of the offence is the encouragement or support of the criminal misconduct, while the mens rea is the accused's intention to encourage or support the principal offender" - See paragraph 444.

Criminal Law - Topic 4351

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Direction regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench recited the three part test in R. v. D.W. (S.C.C.) respecting the burden of proof and reasonable doubt - The court stated that it was not an error for a trial judge to make a finding of credibility as between an accused and a complainant - Error arose when a trial judge treated the matter as concluded once that credibility assessment was completed - Doing so missed the critical third step in the R. v. D.W. analysis, which was that "even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused [i.e., reject the accused's evidence], you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused" - The third step was necessary so that it was crystal clear to the trier of fact that the burden of proving each element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt remained with the Crown and "never" shifted to the accused - See paragraphs 302 to 309.

Criminal Law - Topic 4354

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding pleas or evidence of witnesses, co-accused and accomplices - The accused was charged with first degree murder, aggravated sexual assault and kidnapping - Two of the Crown witnesses had already been convicted of murder respecting the victim - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench gave itself a Vetrovec warning of the danger of finding the accused guilty on the basis of the uncorroborated evidence of these two witnesses, who were accomplices or persons of disreputable character - The court noted the need to corroborate or confirm the witness' testimony from some independent source - The court stated that "confirmatory evidence may be provided by another Vetrovec witness, provided the trier of fact is satisfied with the truthfulness of that evidence" - See paragraphs 340 to 343.

Criminal Law - Topic 5221

Evidence and witnesses - Burden of proof - Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4351 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5404

Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Credibility - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench referred to the multifactoral and contextual approach required to test witness credibility and reliability - The court referred to the following statement: "I must consider the witness's perception, memory and sincerity. I must consider the witness's ability to observe, store, recall and report evidence accurately, reliably and truthfully. I must consider the witness's interest or bias, if any, including animosity. I must consider the witness's evidence in the context of its internal consistencies or inconsistencies with other evidence from other witnesses and, finally, its consistency with reason and the probability of truth. The court can expect discrepancies and inconsistencies from time to time. Such is the nature of our human personalities and frailties. These are to be expected. Some inconsistencies and discrepancies have a need to be resolved and some do not. The evidence must be considered in totality as a whole. I am able to accept some, all, or none of a witness's evidence." - The court stated that "the fact a witness may have a motive to lie so as to avoid criminal sanction is a factor of restricted weight" - See paragraphs 311 to 312.

Criminal Law - Topic 5515

Evidence and witnesses - Evidence of accomplices, co-defendants, informants, etc. - Corroboration - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4354 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. M.B.W., [2007] A.R. Uned. 767; 2007 ABPC 292, affd. (2008), 437 A.R. 325; 433 W.A.C. 325; 2008 ABCA 317, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. S.R.B. (2007), 416 A.R. 223; 2007 ABQB 289, affd. (2009), 448 A.R. 124; 447 W.A.C. 124; 2009 ABCA 45, revd. [2009] 3 S.C.R. 638; 396 N.R. 132; 469 A.R. 185; 470 W.A.C. 185; 2009 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Briscoe (M.E.) et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 397; 400 N.R. 200; 477 A.R. 70; 483 W.A.C. 70; 2010 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Laboucan (J.W.) - see R. v. Briscoe (M.E.) et al.

R. v. D.D.T., [2008] A.R. Uned. 588; 78 W.C.B.(2d) 743; 2008 ABQB 533, affd. (2010), 493 A.R. 167; 502 W.A.C. 167; 265 C.C.C.(3d) 49; 2010 ABCA 365, leave to appeal refused (2011), 424 N.R. 396 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397, appld. [para. 304].

R. v. J.H.S., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 152; 375 N.R. 67; 265 N.S.R.(2d) 203; 848 A.P.R. 203; 2008 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 305].

R. v. Chittick (D.S.) (2004), 228 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 723 A.P.R. 81; 2004 NSCA 135, refd to. [para. 307].

R. v. J.E.T. (2004), 203 B.C.A.C. 236; 332 W.A.C. 236; 2004 BCCA 555, refd to. [para. 308].

R. v. R.E.M. (2008), 380 N.R. 47; 260 B.C.A.C. 40; 439 W.A.C. 40; 2008 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 308].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50, refd to. [para. 308].

R. v. C.J.L. (2004), 190 Man.R.(2d) 177; 335 W.A.C. 177; 2004 MBCA 126, refd to. [para. 308].

R. v. C.L.Y., [2008] 1 S.C.R. 5; 370 N.R. 284; 225 Man.R.(2d) 146; 419 W.A.C. 146; 2008 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 309].

R. v. Dinardo (J.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788; 374 N.R. 198; 2008 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 309].

R. v. White, [1947] S.C.R. 268; 1947 CarswellOnt 8, refd to. [para. 310].

R. v. Jurado (2007), 73 W.C.B.(2d) 93; 2007 ONCJ 44, refd to. [para. 311].

R. v. Knight (J.D.) et al. (2001), 288 A.R. 128; 2001 ABQB 247, revd. (2002), 312 A.R. 106; 281 W.A.C. 106; 2002 ABCA 191, revd. [2003] 1 S.C.R. 156; 302 N.R. 60; 327 A.R. 121; 296 W.A.C. 121; 2003 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 329].

R. v. G.B. et al. (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 30; 111 N.R. 31; 86 Sask.R. 111, refd to. [para. 333].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 334].

R. v. V.K. (1991), 68 C.C.C.(3d) 18; 1991 CarswellBC 418 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 335].

Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354; 4 W.W.R.(N.S.) 171 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 337].

R. v. Norman (D.L.) (1993), 68 O.A.C. 22; 16 O.R.(3d) 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 338].

R. v. W.S. (1994), 70 O.A.C. 370; 18 O.R.(3d) 509 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1994] S.C.C.A. No. 290, refd to. [para. 338].

R. v. Vetrovec; R. v. Gaja, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 111; 41 N.R. 606; 136 D.L.R.(3d) 899, refd to. [para. 341].

R. v. Kehler (R.A.) (2004), 317 N.R. 30; 346 A.R. 19; 320 W.A.C. 19; 2004 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 341].

R. v. Roks (A.) (2011), 281 O.A.C. 235; 2011 ONCA 526, refd to. [para. 342].

R. v. Winmill (T.E.) (1999), 116 O.A.C. 201; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 380 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 343].

Blackwater et al. v. Plint et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 997; 93 B.C.L.R.(3d) 228; 2001 BCSC 997, refd to. [para. 348].

R. v. M.B., [2011] O.A.C. Uned. 49; 83 C.R.(6th) 153; 2011 ONCA 76, refd to. [para. 349].

Singh et al. v. Bains, [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. 834; [2007] B.C.W.L.D. 6416; 2007 BCSC 1500, refd to. [para. 355].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 373].

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. 373].

R. v. Handy (J.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908; 290 N.R. 1; 160 O.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 384].

R. v. C.R.B., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 717; 107 N.R. 241; 109 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 384].

R. v. Carpenter (1982), 142 D.L.R.(3d) 237; 1 C.C.C.(3d) 149 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 384].

R. v. L.I.H. (2003), 177 Man.R.(2d) 178; 304 W.A.C. 178; 2003 MBCA 97, refd to. [para. 430].

R. v. Thatcher, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 652; 75 N.R. 198; 57 Sask.R. 113; 39 D.L.R.(4th) 275, refd to. [para. 431].

R. v. Dooley (E.A.) (2009), 257 O.A.C. 150; 249 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 2009 ONCA 910, refd to. [para. 432].

National Coal Board v. Gamble, [1958] 3 All E.R. 203 (U.K. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 433].

R. v. Dunlop and Sylvester, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 881; 27 N.R. 153; 99 D.L.R.(3d) 301, refd to. [para. 435].

R. v. Hoggan, [1966] 2 C.C.C. 1; 47 C.R. 256 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 435].

R. v. Black, [1970] 4 C.C.C. 251; 10 C.R.N.S. 17 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 437].

R. v. Hibbert (L.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 973; 184 N.R. 165; 84 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 438].

R. v. Roach (R.W.) (2004), 192 C.C.C.(3d) 557; 65 W.C.B.(2d) 60 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 438].

R. v. Greyeyes (E.R.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 825; 214 N.R. 43; 152 Sask.R. 294; 140 W.A.C. 294; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 334, refd to. [para. 439].

R. v. Roan, Brown and Sande (1985), 57 A.R. 296; 17 C.C.C.(3d) 534 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 439].

R. v. Chiasson (J.T.) et al. (1994), 120 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 258; 373 A.P.R. 258; 23 W.C.B.(2d) 538 (P.E.I.T.D.), refd to. [para. 440].

R. v. Meston (1975), 28 C.C.C.(2d) 497; 34 C.R.N.S. 323 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 440].

R. v. Suchan (1952), 104 C.C.C. 193; 15 C.R. 310 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 441].

R. v. Buzzanga and Durocher (1979), 49 C.C.C.(2d) 369; 101 D.L.R.(3d) 488 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 442].

R. v. Keegstra (1991), 114 A.R. 288; 79 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1991), 136 N.R. 418 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 442].

R. v. Almarales (A.) (2008), 244 O.A.C. 127; 2008 ONCA 692, refd to. [para. 444].

R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 447].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281; 47 D.L.R.(4th) 399, refd to. [para. 447].

R. v. Trudeau and Toulouse (1985), 12 O.A.C. 189; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 445 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 448].

R. v. Maciel (R.) (2007), 222 O.A.C. 174; 219 C.C.C.(3d) 516; 2007 ONCA 196, refd to. [para. 449].

R. v. Droste, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 208; 52 N.R. 176; 3 O.A.C. 179; 6 D.L.R.(4th) 607, refd to. [para. 454].

R. v. Oakley (1977), 4 A.R. 103; 36 C.C.C.(2d) 436 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 472].

R. v. Metcalfe (1983), 10 C.C.C.(3d) 114; 11 W.C.B. 223 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 472].

R. v. Johnson (1984), 65 N.S.R.(2d) 54; 147 A.P.R. 54 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1985), 58 N.R. 319 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 472].

R. v. Brown (1972), 8 C.C.C.(2d) 13 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 472].

R. v. S.J.B., [2002] 10 W.W.R. 255; 312 A.R. 313; 281 W.A.C. 313; 2002 ABCA 143, refd to. [para. 473].

R. v. Hernandez (J.) et al. (2011), 302 B.C.A.C. 187; 511 W.A.C. 187; 2011 BCCA 112, refd to. [para. 474].

R. v. Howard and Trudel (1983), 3 C.C.C.(3d) 399; 9 W.C.B. 100 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 481].

R. v. Kirkness, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 74; 116 N.R. 81; 69 Man.R.(2d) 81; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 481].

R. v. Pritchard (D.M.), [2008] 3 S.C.R. 195; 381 N.R. 67; 261 B.C.A.C. 1; 440 W.A.C. 1; 2008 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 534].

R. v. Luxton, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 711; 112 N.R. 193; 111 A.R. 161; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 534].

R. v. Paré, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 618; 80 N.R. 272; 11 Q.A.C. 1; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 546, refd to. [para. 537].

R. v. Harbottle (J.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 306; 157 N.R. 349; 66 O.A.C. 35, refd to. [para. 547].

R. v. Nette (D.M.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 488; 277 N.R. 301; 158 B.C.A.C. 98; 258 W.A.C. 98; 2001 SCC 78, refd to. [para. 547].

R. v. S.E.L. (2012), 537 A.R. 32; 2012 ABQB 71, refd to. [para. 558].

R. v. Leopold (M.S.) (2001), 156 B.C.A.C. 230; 255 W.A.C. 230; 155 C.C.C.(3d) 251; 2001 BCCA 396, refd to. [para. 560].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Rosenberg, Marc, Developments in the Law of Evidence: The 1992-93 Term (1994), 5 S.C.L.R.(2d) 421, p. 463 [para. 314].

Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd Ed. 1961), p. 159 [para. 452].

Counsel:

John D. Watson and Douglas Taylor (Mega Prosecutions, Alberta Justice and Attorney General), for the Crown;

Charles B. Davison, for the accused.

This matter was heard from February 21 to March 16, 2012, before Yamauchi, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on April 11, 2012.