R. v. Castel (S.S.), (2004) 186 Man.R.(2d) 259 (PC)

• Judge: Sandhu, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: May 11, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2004), 186 Man.R.(2d) 259 (PC)

R. v. Castel (S.S.) (2004), 186 Man.R.(2d) 259 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.018

Her Majesty The Queen v. Steve Sidney Castel

Indexed As: R. v. Castel (S.S.)

Manitoba Provincial Court

Sandhu, P.C.J.

May 11, 2004.

Summary:

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and second degree murder. A preliminary inquiry was held.

The Manitoba Provincial Court committed the accused for trial on the aggravated assault charge. The court discharged the accused respecting second degree murder but committed him on the charge of manslaughter.

Criminal Law - Topic 3602

Preliminary inquiry - Adjudication and review - Evidence required for committal or discharge - The accused was charged with second degree murder - The victim had been struck on the head with a baseball bat - The Manitoba Provincial Court discharged the accused on the charge as laid - Although the fact that the accused struck the deceased in the head spoke for itself in terms of moral turpitude, there was no evidence, direct, implied or circumstantial that the accused intended to kill the deceased - There was not sufficient evidence adduced upon which a conviction could be entered by a jury on the charge of second degree murder as the prosecution was not minimally in possession of evidence to warrant the continuation of the process - The accused was committed for manslaughter.

Cases Noticed:

United States of America v. Shephard, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 9 N.R. 215, consd. [para. 7].

R. v. Arcuri (G.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 828; 274 N.R. 274; 150 O.A.C. 126, consd. [para. 8].

R. v. Robinson (D.) (1994), 48 B.C.A.C. 161; 78 W.A.C. 161; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Cooper, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 146; 146 N.R. 367; 103 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 209; 326 A.P.R. 209; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Williams (B.L.) (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 53; 96 W.A.C. 53; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 176 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Nygaard and Schimmens, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1074; 101 N.R. 108; 102 A.R. 186; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Skogman (1984), 54 N.R. 34; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Wilmot (1940), 74 C.C.C. 1 (Alta. C.A.), affd. [1941] S.C.R. 53; 75 C.C.C. 161, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Vaillancourt (1995), 105 C.C.C.(3d) 552 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 346, refd to. [para. 23].

Counsel:

Neil Cutler, for the Crown;

Martin Glazer, for the accused.

This matter was heard by Sandhu, P.C.J., of the Manitoba Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on May 11, 2004.