R. v. Engel (T.D.), 2016 ABCA 48

• Judge: Martin, Wakeling and Schutz, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: October 14, 2015
• Citations: 2016 ABCA 48;(2016), 616 A.R. 181

R. v. Engel (T.D.) (2016), 616 A.R. 181; 672 W.A.C. 181 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] A.R. TBEd. MR.004

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Timmy Douglas Engel (appellant)

(1401-0274-A; 2016 ABCA 48)

Indexed As: R. v. Engel (T.D.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Martin, Wakeling and Schutz, JJ.A.

February 25, 2016.

Summary:

Following a trial by judge and jury, the accused was convicted of first degree murder. He appealed on the grounds that the trial judge erred in admitting his confession, and that the jury charge was not balanced.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on both grounds.

Criminal Law - Topic 1265.1

Murder - Jury charge - First degree murder - Following a trial by judge and jury, the accused was convicted of first degree murder - On appeal, the accused argued that the charge to the jury was not balanced and that his defence was not fairly or impartially presented - The Alberta Court of Appeal disagreed - The law required the trial judge to relate the evidence to the issues, and he did so - "The appellant has not elaborated on what he hoped for by a 'balanced' charge, but if he meant a charge that in equal volume identified the incriminating and exculpatory evidence, that is rarely possible, for obvious reasons. It is also not the law. Such a charge would be difficult to fashion without recourse to hyperbole or distortion of the evidence in a case of this nature, where the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and where the accused's defence amounted to a challenge of the adequacy of the police investigation and the sufficiency of the Crown's case. It may well be that, when measured by volume, reference to the inculpatory evidence was greater than reference to the exculpatory evidence, but that was a reflection of the reality of the case, not bias or error." - See paragraphs 42 to 48.

Criminal Law - Topic 4293.1

Procedure - Trial judge - Duties and functions of - Jury trials - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1265.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4352

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding evidence generally - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1265.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4374

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Duty to relate law to facts - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1265.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5335

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - What constitutes a "threat" or "inducement" - The accused was convicted of first degree murder - On appeal, he argued that the police officer had induced him to confess with promises that, if he did, his pregnant girlfriend would be released from custody, rendering his confession involuntary - The accused wanted the officer to direct his colleagues to stop questioning his girlfriend - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the trial judge rightly concluded that there was never a quid pro quo offer and that the accused understood, as he acknowledged throughout the interview, that the police could not make any promises to him - Nor was the accused's will overborne by the questioning - The accused confessed for his own reasons and not for any improper inducement held out to him by the police - See paragraphs 13 to 28.

Counsel:

C. Rideout, for the respondent;

K.L. Sitar, for the appellant.

This appeal from conviction was heard on October 14, 2015, before Martin, Wakeling and Schutz, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The Court delivered the following memorandum of judgment, filed at Calgary, Alberta, on February 25, 2016.