R. v. Paradis, (1977) 13 N.R. 251 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 28, 1976
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1977), 13 N.R. 251 (SCC);73 DLR (3d) 745;33 CCC (2d) 387;1977 CanLII 1847 (SCC);13 NR 251

R. v. Paradis (1977), 13 N.R. 251 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Paradis

Indexed As: R. v. Paradis

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.

February 8, 1977.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of murder. The trial judge left to the jury the question of whether a witness was an accomplice or an accessory after the fact. The trial judge instructed the jury that there was no distinction, with respect to the danger of convicting without corroboration, between a witness who is an accomplice and a witness who is an accessory after the fact. The jury acquitted the accused.

On appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed, the acquittal was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal was set aside and the verdict of acquittal was restored. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that an accessory after the fact should be treated as an accomplice for purposes of warning a jury of the danger of convicting on the evidence of an accomplice.

Criminal Law - Topic 4354

Charge or directions to a jury - Warning to a jury respecting the evidence of an accomplice - What constitutes an accomplice for purposes of such a warning - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that an accessory after the fact should be treated as an accomplice for purposes of warning the jury that such testimony may be untrustworthy.

Words and Phrases

Accomplice - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "accomplice" for purposes of a jury charge in a criminal trial.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gratton (1972), 4 N.B.R.(2d) 14, 5 C.C.C.(2d) 150, not folld. [para. 2]; folld. [para. 5].

R. v. Riezebos (1976), 26 C.C.C.(2d) 1, folld. [para. 2]; refd to. [para. 7].

Davies v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1954] A.C. 378, folld. [para. 2]; refd to. [para. 6].

Horsburgh v. The Queen, [1967] S.C.R. 746; [1968] 2 C.C.C. 288, folld. [para. 2]; refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Horsburgh, [1966] 1 O.R. 739, refd to. [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Tremeear's Annotated Criminal Code, 6th Ed. (1964), p. 1020 [para. 10].

Counsel:

Alain Brabant, for the appellant;

Fernand Cote, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario on October 28, 1976. Judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada on February 8, 1977 and the following opinions were filed:

MARTLAND, J. - see paragraphs 1 and 2;

PIGEON, J. - see paragraphs 3 to 19.

LASKIN, C.J.C., RITCHIE and BEETZ, JJ. concurred with MARTLAND, J.

SPENCE and de GRANDPRE, JJ. concurred with PIGEON, J.