R. v. Jacquard (C.O.), (1995) 138 N.S.R.(2d) 352 (CA)

• Judge: Hallett, Matthews and Chipman, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: February 13, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1995), 138 N.S.R.(2d) 352 (CA)

R. v. Jacquard (C.O.) (1995), 138 N.S.R.(2d) 352 (CA);

  394 A.P.R. 352

MLB headnote and full text

Clayton Otis Jacquard (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(C.A.C. No. 105056)

Indexed As: R. v. Jacquard (C.O.)

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Hallett, Matthews and Chipman, JJ.A.

February 13, 1995.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of first degree murder and attempted murder following a jury trial. The accused appealed, submitting that the trial judge misdirected the jury by failing to adequately relate the evidence to the legal issues raised, particularly his capacity to plan and deliberate, and mis­directed them on the inference of conscious­ness of guilt which might be drawn from the accused's conduct in wiping his fingerprints from the weapon used in the killings.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dis­missed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 92.5

Mental disorder - Jury charge - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1265.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1265.1

Murder - Jury charge - First degree mur­der - An accused convicted of first degree murder had pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disorder (Criminal Code, s. 16) - The accused claimed that if the defence was not made out, mental disorder was still relevant to intent to kill and planning and deliberation, and the trial judge erred in failing to relate the evidence to whether the accused had the capacity to plan and deliberate a murder - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err - The trial judge reviewed all evidence of mental disorder with the jury respecting the s. 16 defence - It was not necessary for the trial judge to repeat all of the evidence when instructing the jury on the issues of intent and planning and de­liberation - The court noted that experi­enced counsel did not object to the charge, the accused did not testify, mental disorder as affecting planning and deliberation was not raised as a live issue at trial and defence psychiatrists did not testify as to his mental state as it applied to planning and deliberation - On these facts, the trial judge need not differentiate between the mental disorder falling short of a s. 16 defence and mental disorder which might negative planning and deliberation - See paragraphs 24 to 59.

Criminal Law - Topic 4357

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding defences and theory of the defence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1265.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4392

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions re inferences of guilt - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5316 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4399.9

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions re flight and other post-offence behaviour of accused - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5316 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5316

Evidence and witnesses - Inferences - Of guilt - From conduct - An accused con­victed of first degree murder admittedly shot and killed the victim with a shotgun - The gun was later found hidden, with no fingerprints on it, although it was exten­sively handled by the accused - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that there was evidence to support the inference that the accused hid the gun - The trial judge did not err in instructing the jury that they could infer that the accused attempted to hide or destroy evidence and that an in­ference of consciousness of guilt could be inferred from such conduct - See para­graphs 60 to 67.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Thériault (1981), 37 N.R. 361, 591; 61 C.C.C.(2d) 102 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Allard (1990), 57 C.C.C.(3d) 397 (Que. C.A.), dist. [para. 43].

R. v. Wallen, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 827; 107 N.R. 50; 107 A.R. 114; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 383, consd. [para. 45].

R. v. John (1970), 2 C.C.C.(2d) 157 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 53].

R. v. Cluett (1985), 61 N.R. 388; 70 N.S.R.(2d) 104; 166 A.P.R. 104; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 318 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. McColeman (1991), 5 B.C.A.C. 128; 11 W.A.C. 128 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Yadollahi (1987), 19 O.A.C. 392; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 478 (C.A.), dist. [para. 57].

R. v. Pace (1992), 108 N.S.R.(2d) 226; 294 A.P.R. 226 (C.A.), dist. [para. 57].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 16 [para. 24].

Counsel:

Joel E. Pink, Q.C., and Donald C. Murray, for the appellant;

William D. Delaney, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 18, 1995, before Hallett, Matthews and Chip­man, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

On February 13, 1995, Chipman, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.