R. v. Haché (J.), 2007 NBCA 79

• Judge: Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Larlee and Richard, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: November 15, 2006
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: 2007 NBCA 79;(2007), 323 N.B.R.(2d) 254 (CA)

R. v. Haché (J.) (2007), 323 N.B.R.(2d) 254 (CA);

    323 R.N.-B.(2e) 254; 832 A.P.R. 254

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2007] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.028

Renvoi temp.: [2007] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.028

Jonathan Haché (appelant) c. Sa Majesté la Reine (intimée)

(176/05/CA; 2007 NBCA 79)

Indexed As: R. v. Haché (J.)

Répertorié: R. v. Haché (J.)

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Larlee and Richard, JJ.A.

November 15, 2007.

Summary:

Résumé:

A court composed of judge and jury found the accused guilty of first degree murder. The accused appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, Drapeau, C.J.N.B., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The court applied the curative proviso of s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code. Drapeau, C.J.N.B., dissenting, would have substituted a verdict of second degree murder.

Criminal Law - Topic 1263

Offences against person and reputation - Murder - General principles - Intention - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that "... Kirkness [S.C.C., 1990] establishes that a party to the offence of murder must have the same mens rea as the one who actually commits the murder. It is not enough for the prosecution to show that the accused participated in a series of events that led to the death of the victim. The prosecution must prove that the accused was a party to the offence with the same intent as the principal offender. A person who aids or abets another to commit a murder can only be convicted of murder if he or she also had the subjective intent to cause death, or to cause bodily harm that he or she knew would be likely to cause death and is reckless whether death ensues or not. If the intent of the accomplice does not support a conviction for murder, a conviction of manslaughter is nevertheless possible" - See paragraphs 86 to 96.

Criminal Law - Topic 1263

Offences against person and reputation - Murder - General principles - Intention - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code, dealing with the carrying out of a common criminal intention, not only could not be a source of criminal liability for first degree murder but the use of "ought to have known" in s. 21(2) would incorporate a criteria of objective foresight, which was inconsistent with the principle that subjective foresight had to be proven in a murder case - See paragraphs 99 to 103.

Criminal Law - Topic 1265.1

Offences against person and reputation - Murder - General principles - Jury charge - First degree murder - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1269 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1269

Offences against person and reputation - Murder - General principles - First degree murder - What constitutes - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that, in dealing with potential parties to first degree murder, the trial judge had to explain to the jury the requirement that there be a link between s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code and the elements of planning and deliberation - In other words, a judge had to explain to the jury that an accused could only be found guilty of first degree murder as a party to the offence, within the meaning of ss. 21(1)(a) and (b), if the prosecution proved that the accused had, with planning and deliberation, either aided or abetted a murder - See paragraphs 86 to 98.

Criminal Law - Topic 1269

Offences against person and reputation - Murder - General principles - First degree murder - What constitutes - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 1263 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2742

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Parties to offences - Necessary intention or knowledge - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 1263 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2744

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Parties to offences - What constitutes aiding and abetting - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 1269 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5035

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - General - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal discussed the principles governing the application of the curative proviso of s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code - The court concluded that "in cases involving serious errors, the authorities leave no doubt that the standard for the application of the curative proviso is very stringent. According to this test, an appellate court can only deprive an accused of a new trial if the admissible evidence on the record leaves no doubt that a properly instructed jury would have no alternative but to find the accused guilty as charged. Unless the evidence is absolutely overwhelming, the Court must order a new trial" - See paragraphs 104 to 110.

Criminal Law - Topic 5045

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - What constitutes a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice - Jolin, Haché and Whynder were inmates at the Atlantic Institution in Renous - Whynder was taking a shower in a shower room - Jolin and Haché entered the shower room - Five seconds later, Whynder staggered out, bleeding from 13 stab wounds to the upper body - He subsequently collapsed and died - Two knives had been used - A jury found Haché guilty of first degree murder - He appealed - The Crown conceded that the trial judge committed the following three errors: (1) he admitted Haché's criminal record through testimony about the contents of a document that had not been introduced into evidence; (2) the trial judge gave the jury no particular instruction on the interaction between, on the one hand, ss. 21(1)(b) (aiding) and 21(1)(c) (abetting) of the Criminal Code and, on the other hand, s. 231(2) (planned and deliberate); (3) the trial judge left s. 21(2) ("ought to have known") to the jury without any specific instruction, when the expression "ought to have known" incorporated a criteria of objective foresight, which was inconsistent with the principle that subjective foresight had to be proven in a murder case - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal applied the curative proviso of s. 686(1)(b)(iii) and dismissed the appeal - Notwithstanding the trial judge's errors of law, no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred - The evidence showed that Haché was a party to Whynder's murder as a joint principal, and was so overwhelming that the trial judge's errors had no effect on the jury's verdict - See paragraphs 54 to 146.

Criminal Law - Topic 5442

Evidence and witnesses - Evidence respecting the accused - Antecedents or history of the accused - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that no evidentiary rule allowed the trial judge in the present murder case to admit the accused's criminal record through testimony about the contents of a document that had not been introduced into evidence - See paragraphs 81 to 85.

Evidence - Topic 7058

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - Particular matters - DNA evidence and other types of forensic analysis - A forensic pathologist, recognized as such as an expert witness, testified about the dimensions of the two knives used in a murder - The accused argued that only an engineer could establish the dimensions - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal rejected the argument - No particular expertise was required here to measure the width, length and thickness of the two knives - Moreover, it was certainly within a forensic pathologist's area of expertise to compare the size of knives with the size of wounds, in order to determine whether a particular knife could have caused a particular injury - See paragraphs 70 to 76.

Droit criminel - Cote 1263

Infractions contre la personne et la réputation - Meurtre - Principes généraux - Intention - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 1263 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 1265.1

Infractions contre la personne et la réputation - Meurtre - Principes généraux - Exposé au jury - Meurtre au premier degré - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 1265.1 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 1269

Infractions contre la personne et la réputation - Meurtre - Principes généraux - Meurtre au premier degré - Éléments constitutifs - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 1269 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 2742

Tentatives, complots, complices et participants - Participants aux infractions - Intention ou connaissance nécessaire - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 2742 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 2744

Tentatives, complots, complices et participants - Participants aux infractions - En quoi consiste l'aide et l'encouragement - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 2744 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5035

Appels - Actes criminels - Rejet de l'appel s'il n'y a eu ni préjudice, ni tort important, ni erreur judiciaire grave - Généralités - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5035 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5045

Appels - Actes criminels - Rejet de l'appel s'il n'y a eu ni préjudice, ni tort important, ni erreur judiciaire grave - Tort important ou erreur judiciaire grave - Éléments constitutifs - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5045 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5442

Preuve et témoins - Témoignage concernant le prévenu - Antécédents du prévenu - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5442 ].

Preuve - Cote 7058

Témoignage d'opinion - Preuve d'expert - Affaires particulières - Preuve génétique et autres types d'analyse médicolégale - [Voir Evidence - Topic 7058 ].

Words and Phrases

Planned and deliberate - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the expression "planned and deliberate" found in s. 231(2) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraphs 77 to 80.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. O'Brien (R.S.) (2003), 257 N.B.R.(2d) 243; 674 A.P.R. 243; 2003 NBCA 28, consd. [para. 20].

R. v. Randhawa (1990), 104 A.R. 304 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1990), 127 N.R. 77; 111 A.R. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Frisbee (1989), 48 C.C.C.(3d) 386 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Mitchell, [1964] S.C.R. 471, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Seymour (R.) (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 69; 194 W.A.C. 69; 1999 BCCA 87, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Gagné, [1998] A.Q. No. 580 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Harbottle (J.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 306; 157 N.R. 349; 66 O.A.C. 35, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Nijjar (B.S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 320; 223 N.R. 67; 103 B.C.A.C. 247; 169 W.A.C. 247, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Jacquard (C.O.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314; 207 N.R. 246; 157 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 462 A.P.R. 161, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. MacDonald (L.R.) (2000), 184 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 573 A.P.R. 1; 2000 NSCA 60, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Johnson (Y.) and Jensen (E.) (1993), 141 A.R. 184; 46 W.A.C. 184 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Gentry, [1999] J.Q. No. 1590 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Plewes (I.D.J.) (2000), 137 B.C.A.C. 13; 223 W.A.C. 13; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 426; 2000 BCCA 278, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Golubic (N.), [2001] O.T.C. Uned. C08 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. J.I.O. (1999), 239 A.R. 248; 1999 ABPC 54, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Ayotte (J.K.) (1998), 81 O.T.C. 81 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Getkate (L.L.), [1998] O.T.C. Uned. 535 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Payan (P.) (1997), 104 O.A.C. 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Protection de la jeunesse - 800, 1996 CarswellQue 316 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Greyland (D.A.) and Zaremba (S.H.) (1995), 165 A.R. 49; 89 W.A.C. 49 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Strong (1990), 111 A.R. 12; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 516 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Denison (J.D.) (2001), 161 B.C.A.C. 169; 263 W.A.C. 169; 2001 BCCA 703, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Nantais, [1966] 2 O.R. 246 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Trochym (S.J.), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 239; 357 N.R. 201; 221 O.A.C. 281; 2007 SCC 6, consd. [para. 55].

R. v. Marquard (D.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 81; 66 O.A.C. 161; 108 D.L.R.(4th) 47; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 25 C.R.(4th) 1; 108 D.L.R.(4th) 47; 1993 CarswellOnt 995, consd. [para. 74].

R. v. Isaac, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 74; 51 N.R. 308; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281, consd. [para. 89].

R. v. Rodney, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 687; 112 N.R. 167; 79 C.R.(3d) 187, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Logan, Logan and Johnson, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 731; 112 N.R. 144; 41 O.A.C. 330; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 391, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Kirkness, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 74; 116 N.R. 81; 69 Man.R.(2d) 81, consd. [para. 91].

R. v. Jackson and Davy, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 573; 162 N.R. 113; 68 O.A.C. 161, consd. [para. 93].

R. v. Wong (1992), 12 B.C.A.C. 211; 23 W.A.C. 211; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 490; 1992 CarswellBC 1090 (C.A.), consd. [para. 97].

R. v. Sit, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 124; 130 N.R. 241; 50 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 449, consd. [para. 101].

R. v. Michaud (F.) (2000), 224 N.B.R.(2d) 371; 574 A.P.R. 371 (C.A.), consd. [para. 102].

R. v. Khan (M.A.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823; 279 N.R. 79; 160 Man.R.(2d) 161; 262 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 86, consd. [para. 106].

R. v. P.L.S., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 909; 122 N.R. 321; 90 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 234; 280 A.P.R. 234, refd to. [para. 109].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 21(1), sect. 21(2), sect. 231(2), sect. 686(1), sect. 686(3) [para. 4].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ferguson, Gerry A., Dambrot, Michael R., and Bennett, Elizabeth A., Canadian Criminal Jury Instructions (4th Ed.) (2005 Looseleaf), vol. 2, p. 6.42-12, fn. 3 [para. 27].

Watt, David, Ontario Specimen Jury Instructions (Criminal) (2003), generally [para. 90]; p. 470 [para. 77].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Jean-Guy Henry, for the appellant;

T. William Morrissy, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 15, 2006, by Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Larlee and Richard, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered in both official languages on November 15, 2007, and the following reasons were filed:

Drapeau, C.J.N.B. (dissenting) - see paragraphs 1 to 53;

Richard, J.A. (Larlee, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 54 to 146.