R. v. Morin, (1988) 88 N.R. 161 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and Sopinka, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 30, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1988), 88 N.R. 161 (SCC);44 CCC (3d) 193;[1988] SCJ No 104 (QL);[1988] CarswellOnt 967;[1988] 2 SCR 345;30 OAC 81;JE 88-1374;1988 CanLII 8 (SCC);[1988] ACS no 80;[1988] 1 SCR 1206;AZ-88111067;66 CR (3d) 1;1988 CanLII 46 (SCC);5 WCB (2d) 309;88 NR 161;[1988] SCJ No 80 (QL)

R. v. Morin (1988), 88 N.R. 161 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Guy Paul Morin (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(No. 20449)

Indexed As: R. v. Morin

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and Sopinka, JJ.

November 17, 1988.

Summary:

A jury acquitted the accused on a charge of first degree murder of a nine year old girl. The Crown appealed on the grounds that the trial judge erred in his jury charge respecting the application of the criminal standard of proof by the jury (i.e. proof behind reasonable doubt) and respecting the use of expert psychiatric evidence introduced by the Crown.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 21 O.A.C. 38, held that the judge erred in both aspects of the charge, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. Cory, J.A., agreed that the charge was erroneous, but would have dismissed the appeal without a new trial. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, per Sopinka, J. (Dickson, McIntyre and La Forest, concurring), dismissed the appeal, and affirmed that a new trial should be held. The court held that the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that the trial judge misdirected the jury respecting the expert psychiatric evidence and affirmed the trial judge's charge on this issue. The court affirmed the Court of Appeal's ruling, however, that the trial judge misdirected the jury respecting the application of the criminal standard of proof.

Wilson, J. (Lamer, J., concurring), agreed that the appeal should be dismissed and a new trial ordered. She agreed with Sopinka, J., respecting the psychiatric evidence, but expressed a separate opinion respecting the reasonable doubt issue.

Le Dain, J., did not take part in the judgment.

Criminal Law - Topic 4351

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed how a trial judge should charge a jury respecting application of the criminal standard of proof (i.e. proof beyond a reasonable doubt) - The court held that it was an error for a judge to tell a jury to apply the reasonable doubt standard to individual facts - The court also rejected the notion of a twostage application of the criminal standard (i.e. at the fact finding stage and the verdict, or guilt, stage) - See paragraphs 17 to 41, 83 to 96.

Criminal Law - Topic 4361

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding identification - At a murder trial the Crown introduced expert psychiatric evidence to show that the accused was a schizophrenic and that a small percentage of schizophrenics had a tendency and were capable of committing the crime in question (i.e. sexual assault and murder) - The trial judge ruled that the evidence was not admissible as proof that the accused committed the crime (i.e. as to identity) - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the trial judge's ruling - The court set out a test to determine when such psychiatric evidence was admissible and when such evidence could be used as proof of identity - See paragraphs 42 to 66.

Criminal Law - Topic 4365

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding expert evidence - Psychiatric evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4361 above].

Criminal Law - Topic 4951

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Misdirection by trial judge - Appeal by Crown from acquittal - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "an accused who has been acquitted once should not be sent back to be tried again unless it appears that the error at the first trial was such that there is a reasonable degree of certainty that the outcome may well have been affected by it" - See paragraph 78.

Criminal Law - Topic 4970

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of court of appeal - Receiving fresh evidence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada set out the procedure to be followed on an appeal to the Supreme Court where a party wishes to introduce fresh evidence - See paragraphs 67 to 73.

Criminal Law - Topic 5214.1

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - To prove identity of accused - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4361 above].

Criminal Law - Topic 5221

Evidence and witnesses - Burden of proof - Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4351 above].

Practice - Topic 9032

Appeals - Evidence on - Criminal cases - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4970 above].

Practice - Topic 9095

Appeals - Supreme Court of Canada - Hearing of fresh evidence - Procedure - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4970 above].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Stewart, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 748; 12 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Bouvier (1984), 1 O.A.C. 302; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 257, affd. [1985] 2 S.C.R. 485; 64 N.R. 321; 11 O.A.C. 185, consd. [paras. 19, 34, 80].

R. v. Challice (1979), 45 C.C.C.(2d) 546 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [paras. 26, 40].

R. v. Nadeau, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 570; 56 N.R. 130, consd. [paras. 26, 27, 88, 89, 93].

R. v. Thatcher, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 652; 75 N.R. 198; 57 Sask.R. 113, consd. [paras. 26, 28, 34, 89, 93].

R. v. Van Beelen (1973), 4 S.A.S.R. 353, consd. [paras. 31, 91, 92].

Thomas v. R., [1972] N.Z.L.R. 34 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 32, 33].

R. v. Lynch, Malone and King (1978), 40 C.C.C.(2d) 7 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Moreau (1986), 15 O.A.C. 81; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 359 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Agbim, [1979] Crim. L.R. 171 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Thatcher (1986), 46 Sask.R. 241; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Boardman, [1975] A.C. 421 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 50, 54, 63].

R. v. Taylor (1982), 66 C.C.C.(2d) 437 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 51, 54].

R. v. Morris, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190; 48 N.R. 341, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Glynn (1971), 5 C.C.C.(2d) 364 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Lupien, [1970] S.C.R. 263, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. McMillan (1975), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 160 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1977] 2 S.C.R. 824; 15 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Robertson (1975), 21 C.C.C.(2d) 385 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Speid (1985), 9 O.A.C. 237; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 534, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Stolar, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 480; 82 N.R. 280, consd. [paras. 69, 70, 72].

R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Vezeau, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 277; 8 N.R. 235, refd to. [para. 77].

Chamberlain v. R., [1984] 58 A.L.J.R. 133, consd. [paras. 90, 93].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cross on Evidence (6th Ed. 1985), pp. 146 [para. 31]; 310, 311 [para. 62].

Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn Rev. 1981), vol. 9, pp. 412, 414, s. 2497 [paras. 34, 80].

Counsel:

Clayton Ruby and Michael Code, for the appellant;

David Fairgrieve and Laurie Vechter, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Ruby & Edwardh, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 30, 1988, before Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and Sopinka, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was rendered in both official languages on November 17, 1988, including the following opinions:

Sopinka, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre and La Forest, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 82;

Wilson, J. (Lamer, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 83 to 96.

Le Dain, J., did not take part in the judgment.