R. v. Laurier, (1983) 1 O.A.C. 128 (CA)

• Judge: MacKinnon, A.C.J.O., Houlden and Morden, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: December 22, 1983
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1983), 1 O.A.C. 128 (CA)

R. v. Laurier (1983), 1 O.A.C. 128 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Laurier

Indexed As: R. v. Laurier

Ontario Court of Appeal

MacKinnon, A.C.J.O., Houlden and Morden, JJ.A.

December 22, 1983.

Summary:

The accused was charged with committing murder during the commission of the offence of robbery contrary to s. 213(d) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The accused was convicted following a trial by judge and jury. The accused appealed respecting various alleged errors by the trial judge.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 1278

Offences against person and reputation - Murder - Murder during commission of other offences - Jury charge - The accused was charged with murder during the commission of the offences of robbery, contrary to s. 213(d) of the Criminal Code of Canada - The defence was intoxication - The trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the ingredient of the intent to steal and on the effect of intoxication with respect to this part of the charge - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the judge erred, however, in failing to instruct the jury on the intention to steal with accompanying violence and on intent respecting the use of the weapon referred to in subs. (d) - See paragraphs 2 to 3.

Criminal Law - Topic 4955

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Cumulative effect of errors - The Ontario Court of Appeal order a new trial for an accused, where the cumulative effect of errors by the trial judge warranted a rehearing, although considered separately, such errors might not require the same result - See paragraph 12.

Criminal Law - Topic 5256

Evidence and witnesses - Admissions - How made - A Crown witness testified respecting statements he gave to police - The Crown raised the issue that the witness lied in one of the statements - The trial judge permitted the police officer who took the statement to read it to the jury - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in admitting the statement in this way, because to do so (1) contravened s. 10(1) of the Canada Evidence Act (2) wrongly allowed the Crown to rehabilitate its own witness (since it confirmed the Crown's submission that the witness only lied on one particular) and (3) may have prejudiced the accused because of emphasis by the officer on certain portions - See paragraphs 4 to 8.

Criminal Law - Topic 5435

Evidence and witnesses - Cross-examination of accused - Credibility - Accused's prior convictions - An accused was examined-in-chief respecting his criminal record - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in allowing the Crown to extensively cross-examine the accused respecting the circumstances surrounding the commission of a previous offence - The court held that the Crown on cross-examination was only entitled to ask for the name of the crime, the substance and effect of the indictment, the place of conviction, and penalty, but not the details of the offence - See paragraphs 9 to 11.

Evidence - Topic 1130

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Relevance of evidence offered - Prior consistent statements - The Crown sought to introduce statements given by a Crown witness to police - The Crown established by examination-in-chief that the witness had lied in one of his statements - The trial judge permitted the police officer who took the statement to read it in its entirety to the jury - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in admitting the witness's statement - See paragraphs 4 to 8.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. George, [1960] S.C.R. 871, appld. [para. 2].

R. v. Cooper (1981), 49 N.S.R.(2d) 221; 96 A.P.R. 221; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 254 (N.S.C.A.), revd. (1983) 47 N.R. 60; 61 N.S.R.(2d) 263; 133 A.P.R. 263; 2 C.C.C.(2d) 64 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 2].

R. v. Swietlinski (1980), 34 N.R. 569; 55 C.C.C.(2d) 481, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. McLaughlin (1974), 20 C.C.C.(2d) 59, appld. [para. 10].

R. v. Boyce (1975), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 16, appld. [para. 10].

R. v. Davison, DeRosie and MacArthur (1979), 20 C.C.C.(2d) 424, refd to. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. E-10, sect. 10(1) [para. 7].

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 213(d) [paras. 2 to 3].

Counsel:

Brian H. Greenspan, for the appellant;

David Watt, Q.C., for the Crown.

This appeal was heard before MacKinnon, A.C.J.O., Houlden and Morden, JJ. A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal, on December 20 and 21, 1983. The decision of the Court was released on December 22, 1983, when the following opinions were filed:

Houlden and Morden, JJ.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 12

MacKinnon, A.C.J.O. - see paragraphs 13 to 14