R. v. Graveline (R.), (2006) 347 N.R. 268 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: Tuesday March 14, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 347 N.R. 268 (SCC);2006 SCC 16;[2006] ACS no 16;207 CCC (3d) 481;38 CR (6th) 42;[2006] CarswellQue 3399;266 DLR (4th) 42;EYB 2006-104245;[2006] 1 SCR 609;69 WCB (2d) 721;[2006] SCJ No 16 (QL);347 NR 268;JE 2006-916

R. v. Graveline (R.) (2006), 347 N.R. 268 (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: [2006] N.R. TBEd. AP.041

Rita Graveline (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(31020; 2006 SCC 16; 2006 CSC 16)

Indexed As: R. v. Graveline (R.)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.

April 27, 2006.

Summary:

The accused was charged with the second degree murder of her husband. The only de­fence raised by the accused was non-men­tal disorder automatism. The trial judge, on his own initiative, opened for the jury's consid­eration the possibility of an acquittal based on self-defence. The accused was acquitted. The Crown appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, Rous­seau- Houle, J.A., dissenting, set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial. The accused ap­pealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Lebel, J., dissenting, allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4802

Appeals - Indictable offences - General principles - Burden on Crown appellant re­specting errors by trial judge - The only defence raised by an accused at a murder trial was non-mental disorder automatism -The trial judge, on his own initiative, opened for the jury's consideration the possibility of an acquittal based on self- defence - The accused was acquitted - The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed a Crown ap­peal and ordered a new trial - The Su­preme Court of Canada restored the acquit­tal - It had been long established that a Crown appeal could not succeed on an ab­stract or purely hypothetical possibility that the accused would have been con­victed but for the error of law - Something more had to be shown - To obtain a new trial, the Crown had to establish that the trial judge's error(s) might reasonably be thought, in the concrete reality of the case, to have had a material bearing on the acquittal - The Crown was not required to establish that the verdict would necessarily have been different - Generally, alleged errors would go to the defence(s) upon which the accused had relied at trial - For that reason, the errors' impact on the ver­dict, would not be a mere matter of specu­lation - However, here the Crown asserted that the jury might have acquitted based on a ground not relied on by the accused (self-defence), there was no reasonable basis for that defence and the trial judge misdirected the jury on the defence - In effect, the Crown sought a finding that the jury acquitted on what the Crown charac­terized as an unreasonable basis (self-defence) rather than on what it recognized as a reasonable basis (automatism) - The Crown had not discharged its "very heavy" burden - See paragraphs 1 to 20.

Criminal Law - Topic 4951

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials -Grounds - Misdirection by trial judge - Ap­peal by Crown from acquittal - [See Crim­inal Law - Topic 4802].

Criminal Law - Topic 4975

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Appeal from an acquittal - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4802].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Evans (B.J.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 629; 153 N.R. 212; 28 B.C.A.C. 81; 47 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 13].

Cullen v. R., [1949] S.C.R. 658, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 15, 29].

R. v. Sutton (K.M.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 595; 262 N.R. 384; 230 N.B.R.(2d) 205; 593 A.P.R. 205; 2000 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Livermore (C.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 123; 189 N.R. 126; 87 O.A.C. 81; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 212, refd to. [para. 28].

White v. R., [1947] S.C.R. 268, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Vézeau, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 277; 8 N.R. 235, refd to. [para. 29].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 676(1)(a) [para. 13].

Counsel:

Isabelle Doray, for the appellant;

Denis Pilon and Martin Côté, for the re­spondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Soulière Lapointe Doray Michaud La­mour­eux, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Deputy Attorney General of Quebec, Que­bec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 14, 2006, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Bin­nie, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was deliv­er­ed in both official languages on April 27, 2006, and the following opinions were filed:

Fish, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, Abella and Charron, JJ., con­curring) - see paragraphs 1 to 20;

Lebel, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 21 to 31.