R. v. Jasman, (1985) 60 A.R. 100 (CA)

• Judge: Moir, Haddad and McClung, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: January 15, 1985
• Citations: (1985), 60 A.R. 100 (CA)

R. v. Jasman (1985), 60 A.R. 100 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Jasman and Jasman

(Appeal Nos. 8403-7421-A; 8403-7221-A; 8403-7222-A)

Indexed As: R. v. Jasman

Alberta Court of Appeal

Moir, Haddad and McClung, JJ.A.

January 15, 1985.

Summary:

Two accused were charged with one count of armed robbery of a bank, robbery of a bank, use of a firearm (shotgun) while committing armed robbery and being masked with intent to commit an indictable offence. Following a trial by judge and jury, the accused were acquitted on the robbery charges, but convicted on the included offences of theft. Both accused were acquitted on the firearms offence, but both were found guilty of being masked with intent. The trial judge entered only one conviction on the theft convictions. The accused were each sentenced to four years' imprisonment. Both the Crown and the accused appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, quashed both the acquittals and the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 202

Common law defences - Duress - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the defence of duress is unavailable on a charge of robbery to someone who actually took part in the robbery and therefore actually committed robbery - If a jury found that the accused committed the offence, the question of duress would not arise; if found not to have committed the offence, duress could be raised if the jury found that the involvement of the accused was indirect - See paragraphs 4 to 8.

Criminal Law - Topic 202

Common law defences - Duress - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the defence of duress, if applicable, was a complete answer to included offences as well as the offence charged - See paragraph 8.

Criminal Law - Topic 4355

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding included offences - The accused were charged with robbery - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that where there was no question that the robbery occurred, no question of included offences should have been put to the jury - See paragraph 3.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Paquette (1976), 11 N.R. 541; 30 C.C.C.(2d) 417; 70 D.L.R.(3d) 129 (S.C.C.), ref'd to. [para. 3].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 17 [para. 4]; sect. 21 [para. 5].

Counsel:

Jack Watson, for the appellant;

P. Hanington and D.H. Abbey, for the respondents.

These appeals were heard before Moir, Haddad and McClung, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, whose decision was delivered by Moir, J.A., orally on January 15, 1985.