R. v. Duguay, [1967] N.B. Law News No. 28 (CA)

• Judge: Bridges, C.J.N.B., Ritchie and West, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: December 06, 1966
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: [1967] N.B. Law News No. 28 (CA)

R. v. Duguay, [1967] N.B. Law News No. 28 (CA)

MLB Law News

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Riel Duguay (appellant)

(Archives RS43/1966)

Indexed As: R. v. Duguay

New Brunswick Supreme Court

Appeal Division

Bridges, C.J.N.B., Ritchie and West, JJ.A.

December 9, 1966.

Summary:

Criminal Jury Instructions - Appeal allowed and new trial ordered of conviction of Defendent by a jury for breaking and entering contrary to Criminal Code of Canada in the Gloucester County Court. Court held that judge and not jury should decide whether a witness was an accomplice and that the judge and not the jury should decide and instruct the jury whether or not there was evidence to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice. Court referred to R. v. Gouin, [1926] S.C.R. 539; R. v. Hubin, [1927] S.C.R. 442; R. v. Pitre, [1933] S.C.R. 69 and R. v. MacDonald, [1947] S.C.R. 90 and followed and approved R. v. Smith and Gilson. [1956] O.R. 177 which states "if, in the opinion of the trial judge, there is no evidence capable of constituting corroboration, he should tell the jury that there is no corroboration". Appeal Court also held that trial judge did not in express language instruct the jury that if they were not satisfied of the guilt of the D beyond a reasonable doubt they must bring in a verdict of not guilty. Court referred to R. v. Killian, [1952] 14 C.R. 142. Court held case did not fall within provisions of Section 592(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Counsel:

J.F. Arsenault, for the defendant/appellant;

L.D. D'Arcy, for the Crown.

This case was heard before Bridges, C.J.N.B., Ritchie and West, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Supreme Court, Appeal Division.

The decision of the court was delivered on December 6, 1966 by Bridges, C.J.N.B.