R. v. Carrier, (1977) 12 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 189 (NFCA)

• Judge: Furlong, C.J.N., Morgan and Gushue, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Newfoundland)
• Case Date: April 20, 1977
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1977), 12 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 189 (NFCA)

R. v. Carrier (1977), 12 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 189 (NFCA);

    25 A.P.R. 189

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Carrier

Indexed As: R. v. Carrier

Newfoundland Supreme Court

Court of Appeal

Furlong, C.J.N., Morgan and Gushue, JJ.A.

April 20, 1977.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge against the accused of conspiracy to traffic in a narcotic contrary to s. 423(1)(d) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34. The accused was charged after two undercover police officers arranged to purchase a quantity of marijuana from a friend and associate of the accused in the presence of and with the assistance of the accused. The accused was charged and convicted before the Newfoundland District Court. The accused appealed from conviction.

The Newfoundland Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction of the accused, finding that there was sufficient evidence to convict the accused of conspiracy.

Criminal Law - Topic 2650

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Conspiracies - What constitutes a conspiracy - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal set out the ingredients of the offence of conspiracy - See paragraph 5.

Criminal Law - Topic 2680

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Conspiracies - Evidence and proof - Statements of co-conspirators - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal held that hearsay statements of a co-conspirator of the accused could be admitted into evidence before proof of the existence of a conspiracy, provided the conspiracy was established at some point of the trial - See paragraphs 6-10, 15.

Criminal Law - Topic 2681

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Conspiracies - Circumstantial evidence - Application of the rule in Hodge's Case - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal held that a conspiracy could be established by inference from circumstantial evidence and that the trial judge correctly applied the rule in Hodge's Case in convicting the accused of conspiracy on circumstantial evidence - See paragraphs 12-14.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. O'Brien, [1954] S.C.R. 666, appld. [para. 5].

Mulcahy v. The Queen (1868), L.R. 3 H.L. 306, appld. [para. 5].

Paradis v. The King, [1934] S.C.R. 165, appld. [para. 8].

R. v. Rose, [1947] 3 D.L.R. 618, appld. [para. 9].

Hodge's Case (1838), 2 Lewin 227, appld. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 423(1)(d) [para. 1].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, sect. 4(1) [para. 1].

Counsel:

Edward Hearn, for the accused;

Frederick R. Woolridge, Q.C., for the Crown.

This case was heard on November 30, 1976, at St. John's, Newfoundland, before FURLONG, C.J.N., MORGAN and GUSHUE, JJ.A. of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal.

On April 20, 1977, GUSHUE, J.A., delivered the following judgment of the Court of Appeal: