R. v. J.T.J., Jr., (1990) 112 N.R. 321 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, C.J.C.*, Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 27, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 112 N.R. 321 (SCC);79 CR (3d) 219;70 Man R (2d) 81;[1990] 6 WWR 152;59 CCC (3d) 1;[1990] 2 SCR 755;1990 CanLII 85 (SCC);112 NR 321

R. v. J.T.J. (1990), 112 N.R. 321 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. J.T.J. (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General for Alberta and Attorney General of Newfoundland (interveners)

(No. 20758)

Indexed As: R. v. J.T.J., Jr.

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, C.J.C.*, Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.

September 13, 1990.

Summary:

A young offender was convicted of first degree murder after allegedly killing a three year old girl during the course of a sexual assault. He appealed his conviction.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, Hall, J.A., dissenting in part, in a decision reported 44 Man.R.(2d) 265, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The accused was subsequently convicted of first degree murder and appealed again.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, Monnin, C.J.M., dissenting, in a decision reported 50 Man.R.(2d) 300, dismissed the appeal, but substituted a verdict of manslaughter. Monnin, C.J.M., agreed that the appeal should be dismissed, but would have affirmed the conviction for first degree murder. The Crown appealed and the accused cross-appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting, in the decision reported below, dismissed the Crown's appeal, but allowed the cross-appeal. The court quashed the manslaughter verdict and directed a new trial on the charge of manslaughter.

*Editor's Notes: Please note that Mr. Justice Brian Dickson was the Chief Justice of Canada at the time of the hearing and Mr. Justice Antonio Lamer was the Chief Justice at the time of judgment.

For cases involving challenges by this youth to the jurisdiction of the adult court - see 42 Man.R.(2d) 270 and 271.

Civil Rights - Topic 4949

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Removal of element of intent - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1271].

Criminal Law - Topic 1271

Murder - During commission of other offences - General principles - Section 213(a) of the Criminal Code, 1970, provided that an accused who caused death from infliction of bodily harm upon a victim during the commission of certain offences was guilty of murder whether or not the accused meant to cause death and whether or not he knew that death was likely to occur - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 213(a) was unconstitutional for the reasons given by the court in R. v. Martineau, 112 N.R. 83 - See paragraph 36.

Criminal Law - Topic 5347

Evidence - Witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Young offenders - A young offender was arrested for murder - Police obtained three statements: (1) first statement obtained prior to charge at 11:05 p.m. after four hours of questioning; (2) second statement obtained at 1:55 a.m. after youth charged and upon further questioning by police after counsel briefly consulted, (3) third statement obtained at 3:45 a.m. consisting of words and gestures made by youth when taken to murder scene by police - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the three statements were inadmissible for noncompliance with s. 56(2) of the Young Offenders Act (i.e., the statements were obtained without properly informing the youth of his right to counsel or that he could have counsel or an adult present during questioning).

Criminal Law - Topic 8714

Young offenders - Right to counsel - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5347].

Criminal Law - Topic 8845

Young offenders - Evidence - Admissibility of evidence obtained contrary to Young Offenders Act - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5347].

Police - Topic 3124

Powers - Interrogation - Of persons under arrest - Limitations on - Young offenders - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5347].

Cases Noticed:

A, Re, [1975] 5 W.W.R. 425 (Alta. S.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Martineau (1990), 112 N.R. 83, folld. [para. 36]; refd to. [para. 47].

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, refd to. [para. 47].

Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, refd to. [para. 64].

In re Gault (1967), 387 U.S. 1, refd to. [para. 64].

Fare v. Michael C. (1979), 442 U.S. 707, refd to. [paras. 65, 67, 69].

State in the Interest of Dino., 359 So. 2d 586, cert. denied (1978), 439 U.S. 1047, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. G. (1985), 20 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 14, 38]; sect. 7, sect. 11(d) [paras. 14, 38, 47]; sect. 15 [para. 63].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 213(a) [paras. 14, 38, 47].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 230(a) [paras. 14, 38]; sect. 695(1) [para. 39].

United States Constitution, Fifth Amendment [para. 64].

Young Offenders Act, S.C. 1980-8182-83, c. 110, sect. 3 [para. 16]; sect. 56 [para. 1 et seq.].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bala, Nicholas, The Young Offenders Act: A Legal Framework, in Justice and the Young Offender in Canada, Joe Hudson, Joseph P. Hornick and Barbara A. Burrows, eds. (1988), p. 17 [para. 83].

Grisso, Thomas, Juveniles' Capacity to Waive Miranda Rights: An Empirical Analysis (1980), 68 Cal. L. Rev. 1134, pp. 1141, 1142 [para. 68].

Hansard, House of Commons Debates, May 12, 1981, pp. 9516 [para. 62]; 9517 [paras. 56, 57]; May 15, 1981, p. 9647 [para. 63]; May 29, 1981, p. 10073 [para. 63].

Hudson, Joe, Joseph P. Hornick and Barbara A. Burrows, Justice and the Young Offender in Canada (1988), p. 17 [para. 83].

Platt, Priscilla, Young Offenders Law in Canada (1989), pp. 15-13, 15-14 [para. 78]; 15-19 [para. 88].

Counsel:

J.G. Dangerfield, Q.C., and Marva J. Smith, for the appellant;

Brenda Keyser and Jeff Harris, for the respondent;

Bruce MacFarlane, Q.C., and Don Avison, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Jacques Gauvin, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Jack Watson, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta;

Wayne Gorman, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Newfoundland.

Solicitors of Record:

Department of Attorney General, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellant;

Keyser, Harris & Rusen, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent;

John C. Tait, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General of Quebec, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Attorney General for Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta;

Attorney General of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Newfoundland.

This appeal was heard on March 27, 1990, before Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, C.J.C.,* Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was rendered  in both official languages on September 13, 1990, including the following opinions:

Cory, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, C.J.C.,* Wilson and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 38;

Sopinka, J. (concurring) - see paragraph 39;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 40 to 97.