R. v. Ferguson (L.), (2001) 265 N.R. 201 (SCC)

• Judge: Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 26, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 265 N.R. 201 (SCC);152 CCC (3d) 95;265 NR 201;[2001] 1 SCR 281;[2001] SCJ No 7 (QL);44 CR (5th) 305;2001 SCC 6;142 OAC 92

R. v. Ferguson (L.) (2001), 265 N.R. 201 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. FE.011

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Lorie Ferguson (appellant)

(27800)

Indexed As: R. v. Ferguson (L.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

January 26, 2001.

Summary:

The accused was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder, following the shoot­ing death of her spouse. The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge's deci­sion to grant the jury's request, during delib­erations, for a copy of the Crown's closing submissions only, was prejudicial and unfair to the accused.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Laskin, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 130 O.A.C. 253, allowed the appeal, set aside the con­viction and ordered a new trial. The court agreed that the accused was prejudiced by the trial judge's decision to allow the jury to review a copy of only the Crown's closing statement. The judge's decision affected the fairness of the trial. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4345

Procedure - Jury - Evidence - Jury request to review evidence or argument - The accused was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder, following the shooting death of her spouse - The accused appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the trial judge's decision to grant the jury's request, during deliberations, for a copy of the Crown's closing submissions only, was prejudicial and unfair to the accused - Counsel did not object to the jury's request - The Ontario Court of Appeal, Laskin, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial - The Crown appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal sub­stantially for the reasons of Laskin, J.A.

Counsel:

M. David Lepofsky and Gregory J. Tweney, for the appellant;

Alan D. Gold and Maureen J. McGuire for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Major, Bas­tarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision was delivered orally for the court in both official languages by Major, J., on January 26, 2001.