R. v. K.K., (2000) 134 B.C.A.C. 115 (CA)

Judge:Esson, Rowles, Newbury, Braidwood and Hall, JJ.A.
Court:Court of Appeal of British Columbia
Case Date:March 08, 2000
Jurisdiction:British Columbia
Citations:(2000), 134 B.C.A.C. 115 (CA);2000 BCCA 161
 
FREE EXCERPT

R. v. K.K. (2000), 134 B.C.A.C. 115 (CA);

    219 W.A.C. 115

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AP.018

Regina (respondent) v. K.K. (appellant)

(CA022192; 2000 BCCA 161)

Indexed As: R. v. K.K.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Esson, Rowles, Newbury, Braidwood and Hall, JJ.A.

March 8, 2000.

Summary:

The accused appealed his conviction by a judge and jury on charges of incest, indecent assault and gross indecency.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4351

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt - The accused was convicted of incest, indecent assault and gross inde­cency - The accused alleged that the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury that (1) a reasonable doubt could arise from an absence of evidence; (2) more was required than probable guilt and (3) they must be "sure" that the accused committed the offences - The British Columbia Court of Appeal rejected these as grounds of appeal - See paragraphs 7, 35.

Criminal Law - Topic 4351

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt - The accused was convicted of incest, indecent assault and gross inde­cency - The accused alleged that the trial judge erred by instructing the jury that (1) a reasonable doubt was "doubt based on a reason or reasons", and (2) a doubt con­jured up in order to avoid doing something they did not want to do, was not a reasonable doubt - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that these were not errors at the time the charge was given - See paragraphs 7, 36.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lowns (B.) (1998), 116 B.C.A.C. 108; 190 W.A.C. 108; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 295 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1999), 239 N.R. 199; 130 B.C.A.C. 71; 211 W.A.C. 71 (S.C.C.), overruled [para. 2]; refd to. [paras. 44, 59].

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [paras. 14, 41, 60].

R. v. Lord (D.C.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 747; 178 N.R. 152; 53 B.C.A.C. 243; 87 W.A.C. 243, affing. (1993), 36 B.C.A.C. 223; 58 W.A.C. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 52].

R. v. Brydon (J.L.) (1995), 55 B.C.A.C. 6; 90 W.A.C. 6; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 509 (C.A.), revd. [1995] 4 S.C.R. 253; 188 N.R. 321; 65 B.C.A.C. 81; 106 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 6, 50].

R. v. Jenkins (E.) et al. (1996), 90 O.A.C. 263; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 440 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 16, 54].

Stewart v. Stewart and Better Ways Health Inc. (1997), 90 B.C.A.C. 119; 147 W.A.C. 119; 30 B.C.L.R.(3d) 233 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Tolofson v. Jensen and Tolofson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022; 175 N.R. 161; 77 O.A.C. 81; 51 B.C.A.C. 241; 84 W.A.C. 241; 100 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Wigman, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 246; 75 N.R. 51, refd to. [paras. 25, 42].

R. v. Ancio, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 225; 52 N.R. 161; 2 O.A.C. 124, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. R.R. - see R. v. Rollocks (R.).

R. v. Rollocks (R.) (1994), 72 O.A.C. 269; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 30 C.R.(4th) 293 (C.A.), consd. [para. 27]; refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Parks (C.) (1993), 65 O.A.C. 122; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 24 C.R.(4th) 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Collings (A.), [1998] O.A.C. Uned. 376; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 218 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 31, 54].

R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Ford (1991), 12 W.C.B.(2d) 576 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Counsel:

J.R. Ray, for the appellant;

A. Budlovsky and U. Botz, for the Crown, respon­dent;

This appeal was heard on December 7 and 8, 1999, at Vancouver, British Columbia, by Esson, Rowles, Newbury, Braidwood and Hall, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on March 8, 2000, and the following opinions were filed:

Esson, J.A. (Braidwood and Hall, JJ.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 40;

Newbury, J.A. - see paragraphs 41 to 57;

Rowles, J.A. - see paragraphs 58 to 66.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP