R. v. Csincsa (M.A.P.), (1993) 85 Man.R.(2d) 241 (CA)

• Judge: Huband, Philp and Twaddle, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: May 05, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 241 (CA)

R. v. Csincsa (M.A.P.) (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 241 (CA);

    41 W.A.C. 241

MLB headnote and full text

R. (respondent) v. Michael Anthony Peter Csincsa (accused/appellant)

(Suit No. A.R. 91-30-00536)

Indexed As: R. v. Csincsa (M.A.P.)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Huband, Philp and Twaddle, JJ.A.

May 5, 1993.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of second degree murder by a jury and was sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 10 years. He appealed from con­viction.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, but accepted the invitation of both the Crown and the accused to not order a new trial, but instead to substitute a conviction for man­slaughter. The court sentenced the accused to eight years' imprisonment, taking into account 2.5 years already spent in custody.

Criminal Law - Topic 5882

Sentence - Manslaughter - The accused big, strong 27 year old man responded to a distress call from his girlfriend respect­ing the loudly pestiferous behaviour of her neighbour, a 140 pound man - The accused played peacemaker, but the man became extremely abusive and provocative, finally attacking the accused with a table leg - The accused responded by crushing the man's rib cage by jumping on him while he was down, killing him - The Manitoba Court of Appeal found that the accused over-reacted and convicted him of manslaughter and sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment, taking into account 2.5 years already spent in custody - The court discussed the broad scope of man­slaughter, including voluntary and in­voluntary manslaughter, and the resulting impracticality of setting clear and defini­tive principles of sentencing for it.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Cascoe, [1970] 2 All E.R. 833 (C.A), consd. [para. 5].

R. v. Sinclair (1980), 3 Man.R.(2d) 257 (C.A.), consd. [para. 5].

R. v. Tallman, Tallman, Laboucan and Auger (1989), 94 A.R. 251; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 81 (C.A.), consd. [para. 6].

R. v. Sandercock, [1986] 1 W.W.R. 291; 62 A.R. 382 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Konkolus (1988), 86 A.R. 144; 58 Alta. L.R.(2d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Zimmer (1991), 89 Sask.R. 281; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 61 (C.A.), consd. [para. 7].

R. v. Bird (1979), 2 Man.R.(2d) 355 (C.A.), consd. [para. 12].

R. v. Gray and Schinkel (No. 2) (1990), 64 Man.R.(2d) 284 (C.A.), consd. [para. 13].

R. v. Kent and Gode (1986), 43 Man.R.(2d) 16 (C.A.), consd. [para. 14].

R. v. Feil (1991), 73 Man.R.(2d) 143; 3 W.A.C. 143 (C.A.), consd. [para. 15].

R. v. Chipilski (1986), 41 Man.R.(2d) 252 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 18, 31].

R. v. Campbell (1991), 70 Man.R.(2d) 158 (C.A.), consd. [para. 18].

R. v. Wilson (1991), 75 Man.R.(2d) 60; 6 W.A.C. 60 (C.A.), consd. [para. 20].

R. v. Woermann (C.B.) (1992), 81 Man.R.(2d) 255; 30 W.A.C. 255 (C.A.), consd. [para. 20].

R. v. Tates (R.P.)(No. 2) (1992), 83 Man.R.(2d) 18; 36 W.A.C. 18 (C.A.), consd. [para. 20].

R. v. Bell (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 139; 41 W.A.C. 139 (C.A.), consd. [para. 20].

R. v. Sinclair (R.) (1992), 81 Man.R.(2d) 154; 30 W.A.C. 154 (C.A.), consd. [para. 29].

R. v. Bruyere (1987), 49 Man.R.(2d) 288 (C.A.), consd. [para. 30].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 234, sect. 236 [para. 4].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Thomas, D.A., Principles of Sentencing (2nd Ed. 1979), p. 74 [para. 4].

Tremeear's Criminal Code - 1990 (1989), pp. 344-345 [para. 9].

Counsel:

G.G. Brodsky, Q.C., for the accused;

G.A. Lawlor, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard on December 3, 1992, before Huband, Philp and Twaddle, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

Philp, J.A., delivered the following judg­ment on May 5, 1993.