R. v. Lepine (V.), (2014) 464 N.R. 3 (SCC)

• Judge: Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Wagner, and Gascon, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 16, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 464 N.R. 3 (SCC);2014 SCC 65

R. v. Lepine (V.) (2014), 464 N.R. 3 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.R. TBEd. OC.019

Vernon Lepine (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(35665; 2014 SCC 65; 2014 CSC 65)

Indexed As: R. v. Lepine (V.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Wagner, and Gascon, JJ.

October 16, 2014.

Summary:

A jury found Lepine guilty of sexual assault. He appealed.

The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal, Bielby, J.A., dissenting in part, in a decision reported at (2013), 566 A.R. 35; 597 W.A.C. 35, dismissed the appeal. Lepine appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4336.5

Procedure - Jury - The law - Questions by jury - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4391.2 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4379

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions re evidence of character or credibility of accused - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4391.2 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4391.2

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions following questions by jury - Lepine was tried before a jury for sexual assault - After the close of evidence, the  jury sent the following question to the judge: "In a situation where the decision comes down to a question of credibility, is lack of credibility on the part of the defence enough to pass the beyond a reasonable doubt test?" - The trial judge stated that she was not going to answer the question right away because the issue would be dealt with in her final charge - In her final charge, the trial judge gave the standard R. v. D.W. three part instruction - Lepine was convicted - On appeal, he asserted that the trial judge had erred by (1) giving only a partial interim answer and deferring the fuller answer to the final charge and (2) giving the standard instruction as the final charge - The appeal was dismissed - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision - The court was "not persuaded that the trial judge's handling of the jury's question, either in the timing or content of her response, constituted legal error or gave rise to a miscarriage of justice. The jury was immediately reminded not to deliberate until they had heard the addresses of counsel and the judge's charge provided complete and correct legal instructions that were responsive to their question."

Counsel:

[None disclosed].

Solicitors of Record:

[None disclosed].

This appeal was heard on October 16, 2014, by Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Wagner, and Gascon, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On the same date, Cromwell, J., delivered the following judgment orally in both official languages for the court.