R. v. Martin (K.W.), (2009) 324 Sask.R. 132 (CA)
| Judge | Klebuc, C.J.S., Gerwing and Wilkinson, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan) |
| Case Date | March 12, 2009 |
| Jurisdiction | Saskatchewan |
| Citations | (2009), 324 Sask.R. 132 (CA);2009 SKCA 37 |
R. v. Martin (K.W.) (2009), 324 Sask.R. 132 (CA);
451 W.A.C. 132
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2009] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.032
Keith William Martin (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)
(No. 529, 531, 704; 2009 SKCA 37)
Indexed As: R. v. Martin (K.W.)
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
Klebuc, C.J.S., Gerwing and Wilkinson, JJ.A.
March 12, 2009.
Summary:
The accused appealed his second degree murder conviction on the ground that the trial judge erred in declaring that the accused's common law wife was a competent witness for the Crown.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Evidence - Topic 5546
Witnesses - Competency and compellability - Competency - Spouses - The accused's common law wife had a sexual relationship with the accused and victim at the same time - The wife decided to leave the accused and move in with the victim - Two weeks later, the wife told the accused - The accused became belligerent - The wife called the victim - When the victim arrived, the accused shot him in the wife's presence - The accused appealed his second degree murder conviction on the ground that the trial judge erred in declaring that the accused's common law wife was a competent witness for the Crown - The trial judge ruled that the spousal competency rule extended to common law spouses, but that the wife was a competent witness because of the "threat" exception in s. 4 of the Canada Evidence Act - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the accused's appeal - The common law rule of spousal incompetency, as modified by s. 4, did not extend to common law spouses - Common law spouses were both competent and compellable as witnesses.
Evidence - Topic 5603
Witnesses - Competency and compellability - Compellability - Spouses (incl. common law spouses) - [See Evidence - Topic 5546 ].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 6].
R. v. Couture (D.R.), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 517; 364 N.R. 1; 244 B.C.A.C. 1; 403 W.A.C. 1; 2007 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 7].
R. v. Marchand (1980), 39 N.S.R.(2d) 700; 71 A.P.R. 700; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 403 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 8].
R. v. McGinty, [1986] 4 W.W.R. 97 (Yuk. Terr. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 9].
R. v. Sillars, [1979] 1 W.W.R. 743 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 11].
R. v. Coffin (1955), 21 C.R. 333 (Que. C.A.), affd. [1956] S.C.R. 191, refd to. [para. 15, footnote 15].
R. v. Cote (1971), 22 D.L.R.(3d) 353 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 16].
R. v. Jackson (1981), 46 N.S.R.(2d) 92; 89 A.P.R. 92; 61 C.C.C.(2d) 540 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1982] 2 S.C.R. viii, refd to. [para. 15, footnote 17].
R. v. Duvivier - see Johnson v. R.
Johnson v. R. (1990), 60 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1991), 44 O.A.C. 249; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 20 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 16, 17, footnotes 18, 20].
R. v. Thompson (C.W.), [1994] 7 W.W.R. 653; 155 A.R. 9; 73 W.A.C. 9 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 22].
R. v. Campeau, 1996 CarswellQue 326, refd to. [para. 19, footnote 23].
Winik v. Wilson Estate (1999), 181 Sask.R. 111 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 20, footnote 24].
Armstrong v. McLaughlin Estate (1994), 150 A.R. 343; 112 D.L.R.(4th) 745 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 20, footnote 25].
R. v. Hawkins (K.R.) and Morin (C.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043; 204 N.R. 241; 96 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 25, footnote 33].
Statutes Noticed:
Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 4 [para. 14].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), para. 13.63 [para. 23, footnote 28].
Stewart, Hamish, Spousal Incompetency and the Charter (1996), 34 Osgoode Hall L.J. 411, generally [para. 24, footnote 31].
Stuesser, Lee, Abolish Spousal Incompetency (2007), 47 C.R.(6th) 49, generally [para. 23, footnote 30].
Counsel:
Todd Parlee, for the accused;
Anthony Gerein, for the Crown.
This appeal was heard before Klebuc, C.J.S., Gerwing and Wilkinson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.
On March 12, 2009, Klebuc, C.J.S., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Nero (N.) et al., (2016) 345 O.A.C. 282 (CA)
...(T.L.), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 657; 451 N.R. 199; 345 B.C.A.C. 155; 589 W.A.C. 155; 2013 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 154]. R. v. Martin (K.W.) (2009), 324 Sask.R. 132; 451 W.A.C. 132; 244 C.C.C.(3d) 206; 2009 SKCA 37, refd to. [para. R. v. Nguyen (B.Q.) et al. (2015), 333 O.A.C. 199; 125 O.R.(3d) 321;......
-
R. v. Legge (T.N.),
...C.C.C.(3d) 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25]. R. v. Campeau, 1996 CarswellQue 326 (Q.C.C.P.), refd to. [para. 25]. R. v. Martin (K.W.) (2009), 324 Sask.R. 132; 451 W.A.C. 132; 2009 SKCA 37, refd to. [para. R. v. Thompson (C.W.) (1994), 155 A.R. 9; 73 W.A.C. 9; 19 Alta. L.R.(3d) 222 (C.A.), ref......
-
R. v. Nuttall (J.S.) et al., 2015 BCSC 943
...to the common law must be left to the legislature. [23] In support of this conclusion, I found that the reasoning in R. v. Martin , 2009 SKCA 37, was persuasive. In that decision, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal concluded that extending the common-law rule regarding testimonial competency ......
-
R. v. Nero (N.) et al., (2016) 345 O.A.C. 282 (CA)
...(T.L.), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 657; 451 N.R. 199; 345 B.C.A.C. 155; 589 W.A.C. 155; 2013 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 154]. R. v. Martin (K.W.) (2009), 324 Sask.R. 132; 451 W.A.C. 132; 244 C.C.C.(3d) 206; 2009 SKCA 37, refd to. [para. R. v. Nguyen (B.Q.) et al. (2015), 333 O.A.C. 199; 125 O.R.(3d) 321;......
-
R. v. Legge (T.N.), 2014 ABCA 213
...C.C.C.(3d) 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25]. R. v. Campeau, 1996 CarswellQue 326 (Q.C.C.P.), refd to. [para. 25]. R. v. Martin (K.W.) (2009), 324 Sask.R. 132; 451 W.A.C. 132; 2009 SKCA 37, refd to. [para. R. v. Thompson (C.W.) (1994), 155 A.R. 9; 73 W.A.C. 9; 19 Alta. L.R.(3d) 222 (C.A.), ref......
-
R. v. Nuttall (J.S.) et al., 2015 BCSC 943
...to the common law must be left to the legislature. [23] In support of this conclusion, I found that the reasoning in R. v. Martin , 2009 SKCA 37, was persuasive. In that decision, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal concluded that extending the common-law rule regarding testimonial competency ......
-
Table of cases
...(5th) 246, [1997] S.J. No. 172 (C.A.) ............................................................................. 184 R. v. Martin (2009), 324 Sask. R. 132, 244 C.C.C. (3d) 206, 2009 SKCA 37 ........................................................................................ 449− 5 0 ......
-
Table of Cases
...[1997] S.J. No. 172 (C.A.) ........................................................................................ 172 R. v. Martin (2009), 324 Sask. R. 132, 244 C.C.C. (3d) 206, 2009 SKCA 37 ...... 415 R. v. Mathisen (2008), 242 O.A.C. 139, 239 C.C.C. (3d) 63, 2008 ONCA 747.....................
-
Methods of Presenting Evidence
...to mislead the court), so as to allow a party to be selective in the information that is sought from the witness. 42 R. v. Martin , 2009 SKCA 37. 43 R. v. Legge , 2014 ABCA 13. See also R. v. Hall , 2013 ONSC 834. 44 R. v. Legge , ibid. at para. 10. 45 Wigmore, above note 28, s. 2228. 46 Ev......
-
Methods of Presenting Evidence
...of justice demand that we have access to the evidence of all witnesses — save the accused. 41 Above note 29 at para. 29. 42 R. v. Martin , 2009 SKCA 37. 43 Wigmore, above note 28, s. 2228. 44 Evidence Act 1977 (Qld.), s. 8. The l aw of e vidence 4 16 4. ExAminATion in CHiEf Most evidence is......