R. v. Lucier, (1979) 1 Man.R.(2d) 182 (CA)
|Judge:||Monnin, Matas and O'Sullivan, JJ.A.|
|Court:||Court of Appeal (Manitoba)|
|Case Date:||October 09, 1979|
|Citations:||(1979), 1 Man.R.(2d) 182 (CA)|
R. v. Lucier (1979), 1 Man.R.(2d) 182 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
R. v. Lucier
Indexed As: R. v. Lucier
Manitoba Court of Appeal
Monnin, Matas and O'Sullivan, JJ.A.
October 9, 1979.
This case arose out of a charge of arson against the accused after the accused's house burnt. At the trial of the accused the trial judge admitted into evidence two statements made by a friend of the accused at a time when the friend was in hospital dying of severe burns. The friend stated that the accused hired him to burn his house, which he did, using gasoline supplied by the accused in his basement, but severely burning himself in the process. The statements were admitted as statements made against the penal interest of the friend. The accused was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment. The accused appealed from conviction and sentence.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused. The Court of Appeal held that the statements by the friend were properly admitted - see paragraphs 1 to 43.
O'Sullivan, J.A., dissenting, was of the opinion that the admission of statements against penal interest should be limited to statements offered to exculpate an accused and should not be extended to include statements offered to implicate an accused - see paragraphs 44 to 82.
Evidence - Topic 1550
Hearsay rule exceptions - Statements against interest - General principles - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated the requirements necessary for the admission of a declaration made against interest, particularly penal interest - See paragraphs 11 to 12.
Evidence - Topic 1552
Hearsay rule exceptions - Statements against interest - Interest defined - Penal interest - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that a statement against penal interest could be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, broadening the old rule which limited admissibility to declarations against pecuniary interest - See paragraphs 2 to 22.
Evidence - Topic 1553
Hearsay rule exceptions - Statements against interest - What constitutes statement against interest - The accused was charged with arson in the burning of his own home - The accused's friend, who was in hospital dying of severe burns, gave two statements to the police in which he said that the accused hired him to burn his home, which he did, using gasoline which the accused provided in the basement, but severely burning himself in the process - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the statements were admissible, because they were statements made against the penal interest of the accused's friend - See paragraphs 2 to 22 - The Court of Appeal held that the complete statements were admissible, including the portions implicating the accused and not only the portions in which the friend implicated himself - See paragraphs 14 to 15 and 23 to 42.
R. v. Demeter (1976), 16 N.R. 46; 25 C.C.C.(2d) 417; 10 O.R.(2d) 321 (Ont. C.A.) affd. 38 C.R.N.S. 317 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 8]; refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. O'Brien (1977), 16 N.R. 271; 38 C.R.N.S. 325, appld. [para. 8].
R. v. Agawa and Mallet (1975), 31 C.R.N.S. 293, appld. [para. 8].
R. v. Pelletier (1978), 38 C.C.C. 515, appld. [para. 8].
Higham et al. v. Ridgway (1808), 10 East 109; 103 E.R. 717, refd to. [para. 24].
Sussex Peerage Case (1844), 11 Cl. & Fin. 85; 8 E.R. 1034, not folld. [para. 25].
Donnelly v. U.S. (1913), 228 U.S. 243, not folld. [para. 28].
Royal Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 254 Fed. 805 (4th Cir. 1918), not folld. [para. 28].
Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller et al.,  3 All E.R. 891;  2 All E.R. 575;  3 W.L.R. 101;  A.C. 465, refd to. [para. 36].
Ward v. H.S. Pitt & Co.; Lloyd v. Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Company,  2 K.B. 130, appld. [para. 41].
R. v. Cargill (1913), 9 C.R. A.R. 224, consd. [para. 57].
R. v. Wray (1970), 11 D.L.R.(3d) 673, consd. [para. 58].
Sparks v. Reginam,  1 All E.R. 727, consd. [para. 59].
Myers v. Director of Public Prosecutions,  A.C. 1001, consd. [para. 60].
Woodward v. Goulstone, 11 App. Cas. 469, consd. [para. 62].
Re Frits Van Beelen (1974), 9 S.A.S.R. 163;  A.C.L.-D.T. 212, consd. [para. 67].
Tuckwell v. Stock,  1 All E.R. 74, consd. [para. 69].
Quinn v. Leatham,  A.C. 495, consd. [para. 70].
Milangos v. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd.,  3 All E.R. 801, consd. [para. 71].
Davis v. Johnson,  A.C. 264, consd. [para. 73].
Schwartzenhauer v. The King,  S.C.R. 367, consd. [para. 80].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed. 1974) [paras. 2, 28].
S. Whitley and D.N. Abra, for the respondent;
P.V. Walsh, for the accused/appellant.
This case was heard on March 23, 1979, at Winnipeg, Manitoba, before MONNIN, MATAS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.
On October 9, 1979, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:
MONNIN, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 20;
MATAS, J.A. - see paragraphs 21 to 43;
O'SULLIVAN, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 44 to 82.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP