R. v. Kematch and Campeau, (1979) 3 Sask.R. 295 (CA)

Judge:Culliton, C.J.S., Woods and Brownridge, JJ.A.
Court:Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
Case Date:June 18, 1979
Jurisdiction:Saskatchewan
Citations:(1979), 3 Sask.R. 295 (CA)
 
FREE EXCERPT

R. v. Kematch (1979), 3 Sask.R. 295 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Kematch and Campeau

(Nos. 7812 and 7814)

Indexed As: R. v. Kematch and Campeau

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Culliton, C.J.S., Woods and Brownridge, JJ.A.

June 18, 1979.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of murder. The two accused were convicted of first degree murder. The accused appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal set aside the convictions of first degree murder and substituted convictions of second degree murder because there was "no substantial evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could find the killing was planned and deliberate" - see paragraph 41. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal also stated that a trial judge erred in his charge to the jury when he failed to state that drunkenness was an important element in determining whether a murder was planned deliberate - See paragraph 38.

Criminal Law - Topic 1265

Murder - Jury charge respecting planning and deliberation - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that a trial judge erred in his charge to the jury when he failed to state that drunkenness was an important element in determining whether a murder was planned and deliberate - See paragraph 38.

Criminal Law - Topic 2759

Parties to offences - Jury charge - Criminal Code, s. 21(2) - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal referred to and approved a trial judge's charge to a jury respecting whether the accused was a party to a murder - See paragraphs 32 and 33.

Criminal Law - Topic 1278

Murder during commission of other offences - Jury charge - Criminal Code, s. 213 - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal referred to and approved a trial judge's charge to a jury respecting murder during the commission of other offences - See paragraphs 28 to 30.

Criminal Law - Topic 5353

Evidence - Confessions and voluntary statements - Who is a person in authority - Charge of murder - The accused who was injured made inculpatory statements to a doctor while the doctor was treating the accused - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that the doctor was not a person in authority so as to require a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the accused's statements - See paragraph 27.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Fitton, [1956] S.C.R. 958, refd to. [para. 26].

More v. The Queen, [1963] S.C.R. 522, refd to. [para. 34].

McMartin v. The Queen, [1965] 1 C.C.C. 142, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Mitchell, [1965] 1 C.C.C. 155, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Reynolds, 44 C.C.C.(2d) 129, refd to. [para. 38].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 21(2) [para. 32]; sect. 212, sect. 213 [para. 29]; sect. 613(1)(b)(iii) [para. 27].

Counsel:

John D. Hillson, for the appellant, Kematch;

Morris P. Bodnar, for the appellant, Campeau;

Kenneth W. MacKay, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard by CULLITON, C.J.S., WOODS and BROWNRIDGE, JJ.A, of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, on April 25, 1979.

The judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal was delivered by CULLITON, C.J.S, at Regina, Saskatchewan, on June 18, 1979.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP