R. v. Dhuna (S.R.S.), 2008 ABCA 34

• Judge: Côté, Watson and Rowbotham, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: February 04, 2008
• Citations: 2008 ABCA 34;(2008), 425 A.R. 211 (CA)

R. v. Dhuna (S.R.S.) (2008), 425 A.R. 211 (CA);

      418 W.A.C. 211

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. FE.124

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Samrat Ramnik Singh Dhuna (appellant)

(0601-0358-A; 2008 ABCA 34)

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

Alberta Court of Appeal

Côté, Watson and Rowbotham, JJ.A.

February 4, 2008.

Summary:

The accused drove his van into a crowd of people, killing one person and injuring others. A jury convicted him of manslaughter, aggravated assault (two counts), assault with a weapon and flight from the scene of a motor vehicle accident involving death and injuries (three counts). The accused was acquitted of murder, attempted murder (two counts) and criminal negligence causing bodily harm (two counts). The accused appealed, arguing that the jury charge was fundamentally flawed, in that the trial judge elected to comment on the evidence only to a limited degree, and did not relate the evidence to the critical issues of fact and law that the jury had to decide.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4357

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding defences and theory of the defence - The accused drove his van into a crowd of people, killing one person and injuring others - The accused's defence was that he was using the van to flee from the scene following the second of two altercations involving multiple persons fighting including himself, and that he did not use the van to intentionally run the victims down - A jury convicted him of manslaughter, aggravated assault (two counts), assault with a weapon and flight from the scene of a motor vehicle accident involving death and injuries (three counts) - The accused appealed, arguing that the jury charge was fundamentally flawed, in that the trial judge elected to comment on the evidence only to a limited degree, and did not relate the evidence to the critical issues of fact and law that the jury had to decide - The accused's trial counsel had discouraged the trial judge from providing an extensive summary of the evidence - However, after the charge was delivered, the accused's trial counsel changed his position and suggested that the trial judge should provide some further discussion of the evidence (defence evidence relevant to the accused's state of mind, etc.) - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The re-charge could have undermined the balance the trial judge had attempted to achieve in the main charge - The trial judge did not dispense with relating the evidence to the issues - The charge, read functionally and as a whole, was fair and sufficient in this particular case - Alternatively, there was no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in this case (Criminal Code, s. 686(1)(b)(iii)) - The accused's defence strategy could have been directly harmed or effectively submerged if the trial judge had elaborated on the evidence to a greater extent.

Criminal Law - Topic 4391

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Redirection or further direction - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4357 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5041

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - Where jury charge incomplete or in error - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4357 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. MacKay (K.D.), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 607; 343 N.R. 398; 275 Sask.R. 40; 365 W.A.C. 40; 2005 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Jacquard (C.O.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314; 207 N.R. 246; 157 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 462 A.P.R. 161, refd to. [para.38].

R. v. Heil (D.D.) (2005), 376 A.R. 156; 360 W.A.C. 156; 202 C.C.C.(3d) 515; 2005 ABCA 397, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Azoulay, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 495; 104 C.C.C. 97, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. W.J.D. (2007), 369 N.R. 225; 302 Sask.R. 4; 411 W.A.C. 4; 2007 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Turningrobe (R.A.) (2007), 409 A.R. 334; 402 W.A.C. 334; 222 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 2007 ABCA 236, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Smith (T.G.) (2007), 412 A.R. 61; 404 W.A.C. 61; 77 Alta. L.R.(4th) 327; 2007 ABCA 237, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Mahalingan (R.) (2006), 209 O.A.C. 198; 208 C.C.C.(3d) 515 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Counsel:

E.J. Tolppanen, for the respondent;

K.B. Molle, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard before Côté, Watson and Rowbotham, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment was filed by the court on February 4, 2008.