R. v. McCarthy (M.), (1996) 198 N.R. 393 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 21, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 198 N.R. 393 (SCC);1996 CanLII 212 (SCC);92 OAC 199;1 CR (5th) 369;38 CRR (2d) 375;198 NR 393;[1996] 2 SCR 460

R. v. McCarthy (M.) (1996), 198 N.R. 393 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Michael McCarthy v. Her Majesty The Queen

(24995)

Indexed As: R. v. McCarthy (M.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,

McLachlin and Major, JJ.

June 21, 1996.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of numerous weapons charges. He appealed his convic­tions.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Carthy, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 91 O.A.C. 348, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 4300

Procedure - Trial judge - Duties and functions of - Respecting credibility of witnesses - The accused was convicted of weapons offences - At the voir dire he alleged that police abuse rendered a search of his apartment unreasonable - An officer testified that he did not see the accused struck in the head - The accused was not cross-examined regarding abuse - Defence counsel did not cross-examine the officer but argued that all allegations except re­specting the blows to the head stood un­contradicted - The trial judge commented that he was not prepared at that time to make a finding of credibility and that the matter could be dealt with more specifi­cally during trial - The issue did not come up again - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge failed to make a decision on the merits of the evidence before him and thus the accused was entitled to a new trial.

Counsel:

Frank Addario, for the appellant;

Gary T. Trotter, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The deci­sion was delivered orally for the court in both official languages by Sopinka, J., on June 21, 1996.