R. v. Papequash, (1987) 61 Sask.R. 222 (CA)
| Judge | Cameron, Gerwing and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan) |
| Case Date | November 18, 1987 |
| Jurisdiction | Saskatchewan |
| Citations | (1987), 61 Sask.R. 222 (CA) |
R. v. Papequash (1987), 61 Sask.R. 222 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
R. v. Ervin Lloyd Papequash
(No. 2737)
Indexed As: R. v. Papequash
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
Cameron, Gerwing and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A.
November 18, 1987.
Summary:
Two accused jointly charged with counts of attempted robbery and robbery applied to sever the counts. The trial judge refused to sever the counts. The accused were subsequently convicted by a jury of attempted robbery and were acquitted on the robbery charge. One of the accused appealed, submitting that the trial judge erred in refusing to sever the counts.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Criminal Law - Topic 4737.1
Procedure - Information or indictment, charge or count - Indictable offences - Severing counts in an indictment - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that severance of counts was discretionary - The court referred to five usual grounds for severance - Two accused were jointly charged with two counts that had a common denominator, a common perpetrator and a common theme (i.e. robbery of a prostitute's clients) - The court held that the fact that one of the co-accused wished to testify respecting one count, but not the other, if the counts were severed, was not a sufficient basis for the trial judge to exercise his discretion to sever the counts, especially where there was no indication of the nature of the testimony to be given.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Quiring and Kuipers (1974), 27 C.R.N.S. 367, refd to. [para. 7].
R. v. Weir (1899), 3 C.C.C. 351, refd to. [para. 8].
R. v. Olah, Brooks, Groomes and Fong (1979), 4 Sask.R. 62; 7 C.R.(3d) 273, refd to. [para. 13].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 203, sect. 421.
Counsel:
K.W. McKay, Q.C., for the Crown;
D. Andrews, for the appellant.
This appeal was heard before Cameron, Gerwing and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.
On November 18, 1987, Gerwing, J.A., delivered the following judgment orally for the Court of Appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Ticknovich (N.M.), 2003 ABQB 597
...McMath (P.D.) (1997), 100 B.C.A.C. 64; 163 W.A.C. 64; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 174 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100, footnote 56]. R. v. Papequash (1987), 61 Sask.R. 222; 3 W.C.B.(2d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100, footnote R. v. Welyki (1975), 26 C.C.C.(2d) 284 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 100, footno......
-
R. v. To (L.Q.), (2007) 424 A.R. 124 (PC)
...basis upon which to consider this factor, Mr. G. has not met his burden. See R. v. Egoroff , [1999] A.J. 793 (C.A.); R. v. Papequash (1987), 61 Sask.R. 222 (C.A.); R. v. Cross and Lazore , supra." [19] The learned Justice applied Egoroff , expressly referring to the fact that there was......
-
R. v. Violette (J.J.) et al., 2008 BCSC 665
...[35] Proulx J.A. continued at 421-422: This is moreover what the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal wrote in R. v. Papequash, supra [(1987), 61 Sask.R. 222 (Sask.C.A.)at p. 224]: ... the intimation that an accused may testify is not sufficient basis for the trial judge to exercise his discretion ......
-
R. v. Mousseau (T.M.), 2002 ABQB 191
...Ltd., Porter (J.P.) Co. and Richelieu Dredging Corp. (1981), 56 C.C.C.(2d) 193 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 27]. R. v. Papequash (1987), 61 Sask.R. 222 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Welyki (1975), 26 C.C.C.(2d) 484 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 32]. R. v. McClory (1981), 60 C.C.C.(2d) 91 (O......
-
R. v. Ticknovich (N.M.), 2003 ABQB 597
...McMath (P.D.) (1997), 100 B.C.A.C. 64; 163 W.A.C. 64; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 174 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100, footnote 56]. R. v. Papequash (1987), 61 Sask.R. 222; 3 W.C.B.(2d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100, footnote R. v. Welyki (1975), 26 C.C.C.(2d) 284 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 100, footno......
-
R. v. To (L.Q.), (2007) 424 A.R. 124 (PC)
...basis upon which to consider this factor, Mr. G. has not met his burden. See R. v. Egoroff , [1999] A.J. 793 (C.A.); R. v. Papequash (1987), 61 Sask.R. 222 (C.A.); R. v. Cross and Lazore , supra." [19] The learned Justice applied Egoroff , expressly referring to the fact that there was......
-
R. v. Violette (J.J.) et al., 2008 BCSC 665
...[35] Proulx J.A. continued at 421-422: This is moreover what the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal wrote in R. v. Papequash, supra [(1987), 61 Sask.R. 222 (Sask.C.A.)at p. 224]: ... the intimation that an accused may testify is not sufficient basis for the trial judge to exercise his discretion ......
-
R. v. Mousseau (T.M.), 2002 ABQB 191
...Ltd., Porter (J.P.) Co. and Richelieu Dredging Corp. (1981), 56 C.C.C.(2d) 193 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 27]. R. v. Papequash (1987), 61 Sask.R. 222 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Welyki (1975), 26 C.C.C.(2d) 484 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 32]. R. v. McClory (1981), 60 C.C.C.(2d) 91 (O......