R. v. Duke, (1985) 62 A.R. 204 (CA)

• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: August 01, 1985
• Citations: (1985), 62 A.R. 204 (CA)

R. v. Duke (1985), 62 A.R. 204 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Duke

(Appeal No. 8403-7426A)

Indexed As: R. v. Duke

Alberta Court of Appeal

Moir and McClung, JJ.A., and Foster, J. (ad hoc)

August 1, 1985.

Summary:

The accused was convicted by a jury of various indictable offences. The accused appealed the convictions, because the jury errantly had in its possession inadmissible documents of the accused's bad character. The Crown sought an application of s. 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code of Canada, submitting that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, because there was an unmistakable appearance of an unfair adjudicative process.

Criminal Law - Topic 5045

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if error resulted in no miscarriage of justice - Miscarriage of justice - What constitutes - An accused was convicted by a jury - The jury had in its possession inadmissible documents of the accused's bad character - The documents were mistakenly delivered to the jury with other relevant documents - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the accused's appeal and ordered a new trial - The court refused to apply s. 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code of Canada, where there was an unmistakable appearance of an unfair adjudicative process.

Criminal Law - Topic 5045

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if error resulted in no miscarriage of justice - Miscarriage of justice - What constitutes - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that there was no rule that where a jury mistakenly received inadmissible evidence of bad character there was a substantial miscarriage of justice under s. 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code of Canada - The court held that the only rule was that caution should be used in exercising s. 613(1)(b)(iii) in those cases to dismiss an accused's appeal.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Alward and Mooney, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 559; 16 N.R. 127; 18 N.B.R.(2d) 97; 26 A.P.R. 97; 35 C.C.C.(2d) 392; 76 D.L.R.(3d) 577, consd. [para. 2].

R. v. Allen, 44 S.C.R. 331, ref'd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Dillabough (1944), 84 C.C.C. 146 (B.C.C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Pavalini (1941), 76 C.C.C. 191 (B.C.C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Hutchinson (1975), 11 N.B.R.(2d) 327; 7 A.P.R. 327; 26 C.C.C.(2d) 423 (N.B.C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Birmingham (1976), 34 C.C.C.(2d) 386 (Ont. C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 16].

R. v. McKinnon (1982), 39 A.R. 283, ref'd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Kelly (1983), 44 A.R. 22, ref'd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Knuff (1980), 19 A.R. 168, ref'd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Waite (1980), 42 N.S.R.(2d) 546; 77 A.P.R. 546, ref'd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Hamilton (1984), 3 O.A.C. 232; 27 M.V.R. 133 (Ont. C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Morris (1979), 27 N.R. 313 (S.C.C.), ref'd to. [para. [18].

R. v. McFall (1979), 27 N.R. 420 (S.C.C.), ref'd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Korponey (1982), 44 N.R. 103; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 65 (S.C.C.), ref'd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Turner (1944), 30 Cr. App. R. 141, ref'd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Beecham (1921), 16 Cr. App. R. 26, ref'd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Hertrich et al., 137 D.L.R.(3d) 400 (Ont. C.A.), leave to S.C.C. refused 45 N.R. 627, ref'd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Clarke (1981), 63 C.C.C.(2d) 224, ref'd to. [para. 22].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 613(1)(b)(iii) [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Archbold, Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (40th Ed.), p. 748 [para. 19].

Counsel:

John T. Haunholter, for the appellant;

Eileen M. Nash, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before McClung and Moir, JJ.A., and Foster, J. (ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On August 1, 1985, McClung, J., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.