R. v. MacLeod (C.M.), (2014) 465 N.R. 304 (SCC)

• Judge: Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Wagner and Gascon, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 10, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 465 N.R. 304 (SCC);2014 SCC 76

R. v. MacLeod (C.M.) (2014), 465 N.R. 304 (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. DE.009

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Clarence Michael MacLeod (respondent)

(35957; 2014 SCC 76; 2014 CSC 76)

Indexed As: R. v. MacLeod (C.M.)

Supreme Court of Canada

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

December 10, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was found standing over his deceased girlfriend in her apartment. He gave conflicting statements to police denying involvement in her death. First, he lied by saying that he had left the apartment and returned to find her dead. Later, he stated that he was asleep on the couch and woke to find her dead. The Chief Medical Examiner opined that death was caused by strangulation. The accused was charged with second degree murder. A defence expert (pathologist) opined that death was due to heart failure, not strangulation. The accused did not testify at his jury trial. The Crown sought to have the trial judge leave manslaughter with the jury and charge them accordingly. The accused opposed instructing the jury on manslaughter. The trial judge chose not to leave manslaughter with the jury, instructing them that they had two options: guilty of murder or not guilty. The jury found the accused guilty of murder and he was sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 12 years. The accused appealed, reversing his position and now arguing that the trial judge erred in not leaving manslaughter with the jury. The Crown also reversed its position, arguing that the trial judge was correct to not leave manslaughter with the jury, as there was no air of reality to the lesser offence of manslaughter.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Saunders, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported (2014), 346 N.S.R.(2d) 222; 1095 A.P.R. 222, allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial. The accused was entitled to have the lesser offence of manslaughter left with the jury as an option, as there was an air of reality to the verdict. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1266

Murder - General principles - Jury charge - Included or alternative offences - The accused was found standing over his deceased girlfriend in her apartment - He gave conflicting statements to police denying involvement in her death - First, he lied by saying that he had left the apartment and returned to find her dead - Later, he stated that he was asleep on the couch and woke to find her dead - The Chief Medical Examiner opined that death was caused by strangulation - The accused was charged with second degree murder - A defence expert (pathologist) opined that death was due to heart failure, not strangulation - The accused did not testify at trial - The trial judge left two verdicts with the jury, being guilty or not guilty of murder - The judge declined to leave the lesser verdict of manslaughter with the jury - The accused made a strategic decision to oppose leaving manslaughter with the jury (i.e., all or nothing defence) - After the jury convicted him of murder, the accused reversed his position and appealed on the ground that manslaughter should have been left with the jury - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the accused's appeal and ordered a new trial - The trial judge erred in not leaving manslaughter with the jury as an available verdict - First, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the accused committed an unlawful act which triggered a fatal heart attack - It was open to the jury to infer that the accused strangled his girlfriend with the requisite intent for murder or that he strangled her without significant force, which triggered a heart attack (manslaughter) - If the jury had a reasonable doubt about murderous intent, but was satisfied that the accused had caused her heart attack by assaulting her, their only option was to acquit - The accused's strategic decision to oppose leaving manslaughter with the jury did not absolve the judge of his duty to leave manslaughter as an alternative verdict where there was an evidential foundation to support it - Culpable homicide that was not murder was manslaughter - The jury should have been so instructed - The court rejected the Crown's submission that the error occasioned no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice warranting setting aside the verdict - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, stating that "it was an error of law in this case not to leave manslaughter with the jury notwithstanding the position of the defence at trial." - See paragraph 1.

Criminal Law - Topic 4302

Procedure - Trial judge - Duties and functions of - Respecting conduct of defence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1266 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4355

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding included offences - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1266 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4357

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding defences and theory of the defence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1266 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5045

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - What constitutes a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1266 ].

Counsel:

[not disclosed].

This appeal was heard on December 10, 2014, before Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Wagner and Gascon, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 10, 2014, Cromwell, J., delivered the following judgment orally for the Court in both official languages.