R. v. Lavoie (E.K.), 2000 ABCA 318

• Judge: Berger,Conrad,Lutz
• Neutral Citation: 2000 ABCA 318
• Citation: 2000 ABCA 318,(2000), 271 A.R. 321 (CA),271 AR 321,(2000), 271 AR 321 (CA),271 A.R. 321
• Date: 06 December 2000
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

R. v. Lavoie (E.K.) (2000), 271 A.R. 321 (CA);

    234 W.A.C. 321

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. JA.001

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Eugene Kenneth Lavoie (accused/appellant)

(96-16885; 2000 ABCA 318)

Indexed As: R. v. Lavoie (E.K.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Conrad and Berger, JJ.A., and Lutz, J.(ad hoc)

December 6, 2000.

Summary:

The accused appealed his second degree murder conviction.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 4620.1

Right to counsel - Right to effective as­sistance by counsel - The accused appealed his second degree murder con­viction, arguing that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel (i.e., that trial counsel did not properly prepare and organize the defence) - In particular, the accused argued that trial counsel did not present a viable theory of the defence to the jury, failed to point the finger of guilt in other directions, failed to properly pre­pare the accused to give evidence at trial and failed to hire a private investiga­tor - The Alberta Court of Appeal reviewed the record and held that it could find no basis for conclud­ing that defence counsel did not afford the accused effec­tive assist­ance - See para­graphs 31 to 41.

Civil Rights - Topic 4620.1

Right to counsel - Right to effective as­sistance by counsel - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that "the right to effective assistance of counsel is a principle of fundamental justice. The Supreme Court of Canada has now settled the law in this area. For an appeal based on a claim of ineffectiveness to succeed, the appellant must establish that counsel's acts or omissions constituted incompetence, and that a miscarriage of justice resulted. In­competence is determined by a reason­ableness standard. The onus is on the appellant to rebut the strong presumption of reasonable professional assistance by establishing that acts or omissions of counsel were not the result of reasonable professional judgment. Miscarriage of justice may take the form of procedural unfairness or compromising the reliability of the trial's result. In the absence of a miscarriage of justice, and where it is apparent that no prejudice has occurred, the question of the competence of counsel is usually a matter of professional ethics, and is not a question for the appellate courts to consider." - See paragraph 31.

Evidence - Topic 1387

Relevant facts, relevance and materiality - Identity - Motive - At a second degree murder trial a witness testified that the accused had confessed to him, stating that "... I'm going to get away with this ... that asshole is not going to be spending $2 million" (the money having come from an insurance settlement involving the accused) - The accused argued that the trial judge erred in admitting this evidence because its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value - The Crown argued that the evi­dence was admissible as it went to motive - The Alberta Court of Appeal agreed that this evidence went to motive - Identifica­tion was in issue and evidence of motive was relevant to identification - This was not evidence of bad character - See para­graphs 61 to 67.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. G.D.B. (2000), 253 N.R. 201; 261 A.R. 1; 225 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668; 80 L.Ed.2d 674; 104 S.Ct. 2052, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Strauss (D.W.) (1995), 61 B.C.A.C. 241; 100 W.A.C. 241; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Kelly (1992), 52 O.A.C. 241; 15 W.C.B.(2d) 254 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Coffin (1956), 114 C.C.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Chambers (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1293; 119 N.R. 321; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. R.R.I. (1995), 67 B.C.A.C. 137; 111 W.A.C. 137 (C.A.), affd. [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1124; 204 N.R. 371; 83 B.C.A.C. 83; 136 W.A.C. 83; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 367, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Lepage (J.P.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 654; 178 N.R. 81; 79 O.A.C. 191; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 36 C.R.(4th) 145, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.) (1995), 107 Man.R.(2d) 24; 109 W.A.C. 24; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 240; 45 C.R.(4th) 98 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Evans (C.D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 653; 158 N.R. 278; 145 A.R. 81; 55 W.A.C. 81; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 25 C.R.(4th) 46, refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Hawkins (K.R.) and Morin (C.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043; 204 N.R. 241; 96 O.A.C. 81; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Park, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 64; 37 N.R. 501; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 385, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Malott (M.A.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 123; 222 N.R. 4; 106 O.A.C. 132; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 456, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Richer (R.J.) (1993), 141 A.R. 116; 46 W.A.C. 116; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), affd. [1994] 2 S.C.R. 486; 168 N.R. 198; 155 A.R. 210; 73 W.A.C. 210, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Jacquard (C.O.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314; 207 N.R. 246; 157 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 462 A.P.R. 161; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Beauchamp (A.) (2000), 262 N.R. 119 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Avetysan (A.) (2000), 262 N.R. 96; 195 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 338; 586 A.P.R. 338 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Russell (M.E.) (2000), 261 N.R. 339; 266 A.R. 379; 228 W.A.C. 379 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Starr (R.D.) (2000), 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Corbett, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 275; 1 N.R. 258; 14 C.C.C.(2d) 385, refd to. [para. 94].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Boilard, Jean-Guy, Guide to Criminal Evidence (1991), p. 3-2 [paras. 72, 73].

Cross on Evidence (6th Ed. 1985), pp. 49 ff. [para. 62].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1998), pp. 879 [para. 46]; 933 [para. 43].

Counsel:

E.A. Hughes, for the respondent;

M.A. Gottlieb, for the accused/appellant.

This appeal was heard on June 16 and 17, 1999, before Conrad and Berger, JJ.A., and Lutz, J.(ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

The following memorandum of judgment was delivered by the Court on December 6, 2000.