R. v. Maciel (R.), (2007) 222 O.A.C. 174 (CA)

JudgeDoherty, Laskin and Armstrong, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)
Case DateMarch 22, 2007
JurisdictionOntario
Citations(2007), 222 O.A.C. 174 (CA);2007 ONCA 196;219 CCC (3d) 516;47 CR (6th) 319;[2007] OJ No 1034 (QL);222 OAC 174;73 WCB (2d) 235

R. v. Maciel (R.) (2007), 222 O.A.C. 174 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] O.A.C. TBEd. MR.068

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Richard Maciel (appellant)

(C37342)

Indexed As: R. v. Maciel (R.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, Laskin and Armstrong, JJ.A.

March 22, 2007.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of first degree murder. He appealed his conviction on a number of grounds.

The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge made a reversible error by failing to review the evidence and relate it to the respective positions on the issue of planning and deliberation. That error however could not have affected the jury's determination that the accused murdered the victim. The court stated that while a conviction for first degree murder was available on the evidence, the Crown did not seek a new trial on that charge if the court was prepared to substitute a conviction on a charge of second degree murder. The court therefore dismissed the appeal, set aside the first degree murder conviction and substituted a conviction on the included offence of second degree murder.

Criminal Law - Topic 1270

Murder - First degree murder - Meaning of "planned" and "deliberate" - The accused was convicted of first degree murder - He appealed his conviction, arguing that a person could be convicted of first degree murder that was planned and deliberate only if he or she was actually involved in the planning and deliberation - He submitted that the trial judge erred in telling the jury that it could convict the accused of first degree murder as long as he knew that the person he was aiding, presumably his father, had planned and deliberated the murder - The Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed the trial judge's instruction on potential liability as an aider to first degree murder, holding that it was consistent with the case law and s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code - Although the trial judge correctly defined "planning" and "deliberation" and correctly instructed the jury on the essential components of liability for first degree murder either as a perpetrator or an aider, he failed to relate the evidence to the issue of whether the murder was planned and deliberate - He did not direct the jury's attention to the parts of the evidence that, should the jury conclude that the accused was guilty of murder, could assist the jury in determining whether he was guilty of first or second degree murder - See paragraphs 78 to 89.

Criminal Law - Topic 4352

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Direction on evidence generally - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1270 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4356

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding intent or mens rea - The accused was convicted of first degree murder, arising out of a shooting at a pool hall - He appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge misdirected the jury as to the use of evidence concerning the victim's intention before entering the pool hall - The victim's mother, who was in a car outside the pool hall waiting for the victim, testified that the victim told her that he was going into the pool hall to meet the accused and his father - The accused argued that the trial judge had to specifically tell the jury that the evidence of the victim's intention to meet the accused in the pool hall could not be used as evidence of the accused's intention to meet the victim in the pool hall or as evidence that the accused went to a meeting at the pool hall with the victim - The Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed the judge's charge on this issue holding that the instructions were appropriate and did not constitute reversible error - See paragraphs 62 to 77.

Criminal Law - Topic 4970

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Receiving fresh evidence - General - The accused was convicted of first degree murder - He appealed his conviction, seeking to introduce fresh evidence on appeal to explain inculpatory statements made during intercepted communications - The accused chose not to tell his trial lawyer about the explanation for the intercepts for tactical reasons - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed when new evidence would be heard on appeal, especially in a situation where a tactical decision had been made not to present the evidence at trial despite its availability - The court refused to admit the new evidence in this case stating that the evidence was not sufficiently cogent to justify ignoring the considered tactical decision made at trial by the accused - It did not raise sufficient concerns as to the reliability of the verdict to warrant the damage that would be done to the integrity of the criminal justice process by allowing the accused to secure a new trial by adducing evidence on appeal that he deliberately chose not to adduce at trial, and that should the court order a new trial might never see the light of day at that trial - See paragraphs 15 to 55.

Evidence - Topic 1667

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - Statements of physical sensation and mental condition - Statements of intent or motive or reason - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4356 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Palmer (1979), 30 N.R. 181; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Price (S.L.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 633; 157 N.R. 378; 145 A.R. 231; 55 W.A.C. 231, affing. (1992), 131 A.R. 54; 25 W.A.C. 54 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Warsing (K.L.) (1998), 233 N.R. 319; 115 B.C.A.C. 214; 189 W.A.C. 214; 130 C.C.C.(3d) 259 (S.C.C.), affing. (1997), 97 B.C.A.C. 137; 157 W.A.C. 137; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Lévesque (R.) (2000), 260 N.R. 165; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Gorecki (No. 2) (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 135 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Buxbaum (1989), 33 O.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Canhoto (M.) (1999), 127 O.A.C. 147; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Smith (J.) (2001), 154 O.A.C. 51; 161 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Perlett (J.D.) (2006), 214 O.A.C. 264; 212 C.C.C.(3d) 11 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Reference Re Gruenke - see Reference Re Breese (A.R.).

Reference Re Breese (A.R.) (1998), 131 Man.R.(2d) 161; 187 W.A.C. 161; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 72 (C.A.), affd. (2000), 255 N.R. 202; 148 Man.R.(2d) 315; 224 W.A.C. 315; 146 C.C.C.(3d) 319 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Huenemann (D.C.) (1993), 38 B.C.A.C. 20; 62 W.A.C. 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. I.E.M. (2003), 169 O.A.C. 240; 173 C.C.C.(3d) 515 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

McMartin v. R., [1965] 1 C.C.C. 142 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. 1275729 Ontario Inc. et al. (2005), 205 O.A.C. 359 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Stolar - see R. v. Nielsen and Stolar.

R. v. Nielsen and Stolar (1988), 82 N.R. 280; 52 Man.R.(2d) 46; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 46].

Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Starr (R.D.) (2000), 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Brown (D.M.) (1995), 145 N.S.R.(2d) 387; 418 A.P.R. 387; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 422 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Hertrich, Stewart and Skinner (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 510 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Martineau (1990), 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Jackson and Davy (1993), 162 N.R. 113; 68 O.A.C. 161; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (S.C.C.), affing. (1991), 51 O.A.C. 92; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Thatcher (1987), 75 N.R. 198; 57 Sask.R. 113; 32 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Hibbert (L.) (1995), 184 N.R. 165; 84 O.A.C. 161; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Dunlop and Sylvester (1979), 27 N.R. 153; 47 C.C.C.(2d) 93 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Yanover and Gerol (No. 1) (1985), 9 O.A.C. 93; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 300 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Adams and Waltz (1989), 33 O.A.C. 148; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 100 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Kirkness (1990), 116 N.R. 81; 69 Man.R.(2d) 81; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Wigman (1987), 75 N.R. 51; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Ruggiero (1972), 9 C.C.C.(2d) 546 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 99].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ashworth, Andrew, Principles of Criminal Law (5th Ed. 2006), pp. 88, 89, 90 [para. 80].

Hill, S. Casey, in McWilliams, Peter K., Canadian Criminal Evidence (4th Ed. 2003) (2006 Looseleaf Update), para. 4:20 [para. 74].

McWilliams, Peter K., Canadian Criminal Evidence (4th Ed. 2003) (2006 Looseleaf Update), para. 4:20 [para. 74].

Rose, V. Gordon, Parties to an Offence (1982), p. 11 [para. 88].

Steusser, Lee, R. v. Starr and Reform of the Hearsay Exceptions (2002), 7 Can. Cr. L. Rev. 55, pp. 63, 64 [para. 74].

Stuart, Don, Charter Justice in Canadian Criminal Law (4th Ed. 2005), pp. 79, 80, 81 [para. 81].

Williams, Glanville, Convictions and Fair Labelling (1983), 42 Cambridge L.J. 85, generally [para. 80].

Counsel:

Philip Campbell, for the appellant;

Jennifer Woollcombe, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 5-6, 2006, by Doherty, Laskin and Armstrong, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision of the court was delivered by Doherty, J.A., on March 22, 2007.

To continue reading

Request your trial
122 practice notes
  • R. v. Briscoe (M.E.), (2012) 532 A.R. 48 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • March 16, 2012
    ...to. [para. 447]. R. v. Trudeau and Toulouse (1985), 12 O.A.C. 189; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 445 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 448]. R. v. Maciel (R.) (2007), 222 O.A.C. 174; 219 C.C.C.(3d) 516; 2007 ONCA 196, refd to. [para. 449]. R. v. Droste, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 208; 52 N.R. 176; 3 O.A.C. 179; 6 D.L.R.(4th) 6......
  • R. v. West,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • February 25, 2010
    ...refd to. [para. 30]. R. v. Angelillo (G.), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 728; 355 N.R. 226; 2006 SCC 55, refd to. [para. 31]. R. v. Maciel (R.) (2007), 222 O.A.C. 174; 2007 ONCA 196, leave to appeal denied [2007] 3 S.C.R. xi; 378 N.R. 393; 245 O.A.C. 398, refd to. [para. 32]. R. v. James (W.A.) et al. (2......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Anatomy of Criminal Procedure. A Visual Guide to the Law Post-trial matters Special Post-conviction Procedures
    • June 15, 2019
    ...11–12, 20, 24, 25, 28 R v Macfarlane (1976), 3 Alta LR (2d) 341 (SCAD) ............................................... 347 R v Maciel, 2007 ONCA 196 ..............................................................................341 R v MacKenzie, 2013 SCC 50 .......................................
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Criminal Law. Seventh Edition
    • August 4, 2018
    ...1, 114 CCC (3d) 145 ............ 52 R v MacDougall, [1982] 2 SCR 605, 1 CCC (3d) 65, 31 CR (3d) 1 .................... 110 R v Maciel, 2007 ONCA 196 ............................................................................... 170 R v MacIntyre (1983), 24 MVR 67 (Ont CA) .......................
  • Request a trial to view additional results
112 cases
  • R. v. Briscoe (M.E.), (2012) 532 A.R. 48 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • March 16, 2012
    ...to. [para. 447]. R. v. Trudeau and Toulouse (1985), 12 O.A.C. 189; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 445 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 448]. R. v. Maciel (R.) (2007), 222 O.A.C. 174; 219 C.C.C.(3d) 516; 2007 ONCA 196, refd to. [para. 449]. R. v. Droste, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 208; 52 N.R. 176; 3 O.A.C. 179; 6 D.L.R.(4th) 6......
  • R. v. West,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • February 25, 2010
    ...refd to. [para. 30]. R. v. Angelillo (G.), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 728; 355 N.R. 226; 2006 SCC 55, refd to. [para. 31]. R. v. Maciel (R.) (2007), 222 O.A.C. 174; 2007 ONCA 196, leave to appeal denied [2007] 3 S.C.R. xi; 378 N.R. 393; 245 O.A.C. 398, refd to. [para. 32]. R. v. James (W.A.) et al. (2......
  • Ontario (Min. of Gov. and Con. Services) v. Ivan’s Electric Limited, 2017 ONCJ 227
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
    • April 4, 2017
    ...be committed. That sufficient knowledge is a prerequisite for intention is simply a matter of common sense. Doherty J.A. in R. v. Maciel, 2007 ONCA 196 (CanLII), 219 C.C.C. (3d) 516, provides the following useful explanation of the knowledge requirement which is entirely apposite to this ca......
  • R. v. Hamilton (A.) et al.,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • May 24, 2011
    ...200; 2007 ONCA 575, refd to. [para. 313]. R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 314]. R. v. Maciel (R.) (2007), 222 O.A.C. 174; 2007 ONCA 196, leave to appeal denied (2007), 378 N.R. 393; 245 O.A.C. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. R. v. Phillion (R.J.) (2009), 246 O.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (OCTOBER 14 – OCTOBER 18 2019)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • October 19, 2019
    ...R v Largie, 2010 ONCA 548, R v Morrissey (1995), 22 OR (3d) 514 (CA), R v Almarales, 2008 ONCA 692, R v Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13, R v Maciel, 2007 ONCA 196, R v Josipovic, 2019 ONCA 633, R v Mendez, 2018 ONCA 354, R v Kelsie, 2017 NSCA 89, R v Chambers, 2016 ONCA 684, R v Phillips, 2017 ONCA 75......
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (June 12 – 16, 2017)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • June 30, 2017
    ...Criminal Law, Murder, Attempted Murder, R. v. Jack (1993), 88 Man. R. (2d) 93 (C.A.), aff'd [1994] 2 S.C.R. 310, R. v. Maciel (2007), 219 C.C.C. (3d) 516, leave to appeal refused [2007] 3 S.C.R. R. v. Denouden (Appeal Book Endorsement), 2017 ONCA 497 [Doherty, Rouleau and Hourigan JJ.A.] Co......
12 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Anatomy of Criminal Procedure. A Visual Guide to the Law Post-trial matters Special Post-conviction Procedures
    • June 15, 2019
    ...11–12, 20, 24, 25, 28 R v Macfarlane (1976), 3 Alta LR (2d) 341 (SCAD) ............................................... 347 R v Maciel, 2007 ONCA 196 ..............................................................................341 R v MacKenzie, 2013 SCC 50 .......................................
  • Appeals
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Criminal Procedure. Fourth Edition
    • June 23, 2020
    ...order to see first whether the accused is entitled to an acquittal. 105 R v Dhillon , 2014 BCCA 480 at para 50 [ Dhillon ]; R v Maciel , 2007 ONCA 196 at para 46 [ Maciel ]. Appeals 585 in custody or had been subjected to several trials. 106 In the unusual circumstances of R v Truscott — am......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Criminal Procedure. Fourth Edition
    • June 23, 2020
    ...299 R v MacGillivray, [1995] 1 SCR 890, 97 CCC (3d) 13, [1995] SCJ No 20 ......... 578 R v Maciel, 2007 ONCA 196 ....................................................................... 584, 593 R v MacInnis (2006), 246 NSR (2d) 258, 212 CCC (3d) 103, 2006 NSCA 92 .................................
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Criminal Law. Seventh Edition
    • August 4, 2018
    ...1, 114 CCC (3d) 145 ............ 52 R v MacDougall, [1982] 2 SCR 605, 1 CCC (3d) 65, 31 CR (3d) 1 .................... 110 R v Maciel, 2007 ONCA 196 ............................................................................... 170 R v MacIntyre (1983), 24 MVR 67 (Ont CA) .......................
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT