R. v. Poitras (J.P.), (2002) 154 O.A.C. 25 (CA)

• Judge: Doherty, Rosenberg and Borins, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: October 29, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2002), 154 O.A.C. 25 (CA)

R. v. Poitras (J.P.) (2002), 154 O.A.C. 25 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.030

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Jean Paul Poitras (appellant)

(C34214)

Indexed As: R. v. Poitras (J.P.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, Rosenberg and Borins, JJ.A.

January 11, 2002.

Summary:

The accused appealed his conviction for first degree murder.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1270

Murder - General principles - First degree murder - Meaning of "planned" and "deliberate" - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4359 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4350.3

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Use of written instructions - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated "The time has come to embrace the use of written material to enhance juror comprehension of oral instructions, particularly where those instructions must be lengthy and complex. There is no legal impediment to the use of written material as an adjunct to oral instructions. While the Criminal Code contemplates that trial judges will give closing instructions to the jury (s. 650.1), it says nothing about how those instructions should be given." - See paragraph 47.

Criminal Law - Topic 4350.3

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Use of written instructions - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that written instructions could be given to a jury and that the instructions did not have to contain the entire charge given by the trial judge - The court discussed what should be included in the written material and the procedure that should be followed when using written instructions - See paragraphs 38 to 63.

Criminal Law - Topic 4359

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directed verdict of "not guilty" - The accused sought a directed verdict of acquittal on a charge of first degree murder - He argued that the after-the-fact conduct potentially attributable to him (e.g., the dismemberment and hiding of the body parts) could not assist the jury in determining his level of culpability, that the evidence was equally consistent with second degree murder as with first degree murder and therefore had no evidentiary value on the question of whether the murder was planned and deliberate - The trial judge disagreed - The accused appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - If as a matter of common sense and human experience, the after-the-fact conduct considered in combination with the rest of the evidence was reasonably capable of supporting the inference that the murder was planned and deliberate, then the evidence was relevant to that issue - See paragraphs 9 to 11.

Criminal Law - Topic 4379

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions re evidence of character or credibility of accused - The accused testified at his trial - He was convicted of first degree murder - On appeal, the accused submitted, inter alia, that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that the accused had an interest in the result and that it could bear that interest in mind in assessing his credibility - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - Although trial judges should not isolate the accused's evidence when instructing juries on the relevance of motive to the credibility of a witness's evidence, the reference to the accused's interest did not erode the trial judge's instruction on the presumption of innocence and burden of proof, when considered in the context of the entire charge - See paragraphs 15 to 21.

Criminal Law - Topic 4440

Procedure - Verdicts - Discharges and dismissals - Directed verdicts - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4359 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5316

Evidence and witnesses - Inferences - Of guilt - From conduct - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4359 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5419

Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Criminal record - The accused was convicted of first degree murder - Before he testified at trial, the accused moved to exclude evidence of his lengthy criminal record which extended from 1968 to 1988 - The trial judge ruled that the accused's convictions for crimes of dishonesty were admissible, but that his convictions for driving while disqualified and carrying a concealed weapon would not be admitted - The accused appealed, submitting, inter alia, that the trial judge erred in not excluding all of the accused's criminal record - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the submission - See paragraphs 27 to 28.

Criminal Law - Topic 5419

Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Criminal record - The accused was convicted of first degree murder - Before he testified at trial, the accused moved to exclude evidence of his lengthy criminal record which extended from 1968 to 1988 - The trial judge ruled that the accused's convictions for crimes of dishonesty were admissible, but that his convictions for driving while disqualified and carrying a concealed weapon would not be admitted - He also ruled that the accused could not: 1) bring out the specifics of his criminal record or 2) elicit the sentences imposed on the convictions - The accused appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court held that the trial judge erred in making the last two rulings, but that the accused was not prejudiced by the errors - See paragraphs 29 to 37.

Evidence - Topic 218

Inferences and weight of evidence - Inferences - Inference of fact from conduct - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4359 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. MacKinnon (T.N.) et al. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 258; 132 C.C.C.(3d) 545 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. W.D.S., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 521; 171 N.R. 360; 157 A.R. 321; 77 W.A.C. 321; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Trombley (E.) (1998), 110 O.A.C. 329; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 495 (C.A.), affd. [1999] 1 S.C.R. 757; 238 N.R. 95; 120 O.A.C. 302; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 576, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Zurmati (L.M.), [1993] O.J. No. 1520 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1994), 169 N.R. 319; 68 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Stewart (1991), 43 O.A.C. 109; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. St. Pierre (1974), 17 C.C.C.(2d) 489 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Boyce (1975), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 16 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Wong (1978), 41 C.C.C.(2d) 196 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Ramos-Paz (C.) (1998), 118 B.C.A.C. 309; 192 W.A.C. 309 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 6].

R. v. Allen (S.G.) (1999), 122 B.C.A.C. 286; 200 W.A.C. 286 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 6].

R. v. McKenna (E.D.) (2001), 147 B.C.A.C. 49; 241 W.A.C. 49; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 63 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 6].

R. v. Ménard (S.) (1996), 92 O.A.C. 43; 108 C.C.C.(3d) 424 (C.A.), affd. [1998] 2 S.C.R. 109; 228 N.R. 100; 111 O.A.C. 1; 125 C.C.C.(3d) 416, consd. [para. 47].

R. v. Cathro (1955), 112 C.C.C. 154 (B.C.C.A.), revd. [1956] S.C.R. 101, consd. [para. 53].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Annotation, Propriety and Prejudicial Effect of Sending Written Jury Instructions with Retiring Jury in Criminal Case, 91 A.L.R.3d 382, generally [para. 45, footnote 7].

Bouck, John C., Criminal Jury Trials: Pattern Instructions and Rules of Procedure (1993), 72 Can. Bar Rev. 129, generally [para. 45, footnote 5].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, The Jury in Criminal Trials: Working Paper 27 (1980), pp. 95 to 98 [para. 44, footnote 4].

Dann, Learning Lessons and Speaking Rights: Creating Educated and Democratic Juries (1993), 68 Ind. L.J. 1229, p. 1259 [para. 46, footnote 8].

Ferguson, Gerry A., and Bouck, John C., Canadian Criminal Jury Instructions (3rd Ed.) (2000 Update), vol. 1, para. 4.00 [para. 45, footnote 6].

Lieberman and Sales, What Social Science Teaches Us About the Jury Instruction Process (1997), 3 Psychology, Public Policy and Law 589, p. 626 [para. 46, footnote 8].

Nathanson, Strengthening the Criminal Jury Trial: Long Overdue (1996), 38 Crim. L.Q. 217, generally [para. 45, footnote 5].

National Judicial Institute, Report on the Jury Instructions Symposium, Criminal Jury Trials (March 1997), p. 28 [para. 45, footnote 5].

Sand and Reiss, A Report on Seven Experiments Conducted by District Court Judges in the Second Circuit (1985), 60 N.Y.U. Law Rev. 427, generally [para. 46, footnote 8].

Schwartzer, Reforming Jury Trials (1991), 132 F.R.D. 575, pp. 584, 585 [para. 45, footnote 7].

Watt, The Education of Criminal Jurors: Plain Talk and Jury Aids (1998), Proceedings of the Ontario Court (General Division) Spring Education Seminar, generally [para. 45, footnote 5].

Counsel:

Norman Boxall, for the appellant;

W. Graeme Cameron, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 29, 2001, by Doherty, Rosenberg and Borins, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Doherty, J.A., delivered the following decision for the Court of Appeal on January 11, 2002.