R. v. Purchase (R.D.), 2015 BCCA 211
| Judge | Newbury, Smith and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
| Case Date | January 16, 2015 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | 2015 BCCA 211;(2015), 372 B.C.A.C. 182 (CA) |
R. v. Purchase (R.D.) (2015), 372 B.C.A.C. 182 (CA);
640 W.A.C. 182
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.041
Regina (respondent) v. Robert David Purchase (appellant)
(CA040412; 2015 BCCA 211)
Indexed As: R. v. Purchase (R.D.)
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Newbury, Smith and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A.
May 14, 2015.
Summary:
Purchase was convicted of second degree murder, following his trial before a judge and jury. He appealed, raising two issues: (1) that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the use that could be made of evidence of his conduct after the offence; and (2) that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the use that could be made of the exculpatory portions of his statement to the police. Trial counsel had not addressed the issues now advanced by appellate counsel.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. With respect to the first issue, limiting and "no probative value" instructions were required to ensure the jury was aware of the permissible use of the post-offence conduct evidence and that it had no probative value with respect to whether Purchase intended to kill the victim. Nevertheless, the error was so harmless that it could not have affected the verdict (Criminal Code, s. 686(1)(b)(iii)). As to the second issue, the trial judge's instruction would not have left the jury under a misapprehension as to the use they could make of the exculpatory portions of Purchase's statement to the police.
Criminal Law - Topic 1265.2
Offences against person and reputation - Murder - General principles - Jury charge - Second degree murder - See paragraphs 23 to 59.
Criminal Law - Topic 1299
Offences against person and reputation - Murder - Defences - Jury charge (incl. intent and drunkenness) - See paragraphs 23 to 59.
Criminal Law - Topic 4375.1
Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding exculpatory statements by accused - See paragraphs 39 to 59.
Criminal Law - Topic 4378
Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Judicial review of - See paragraphs 21 and 22.
Criminal Law - Topic 4381
Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Misdirection - Effect of - See paragraphs 57 and 58.
Criminal Law - Topic 4393
Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Failure by counsel to object - Effect of - See paragraph 37.
Criminal Law - Topic 4399.9
Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions re flight and other post-offence behaviour of accused - See paragraphs 23 to 32.
Criminal Law - Topic 5041
Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - Where directions or jury charge incomplete or in error - See paragraphs 33 to 37, 57 and 58.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Araya (N.) (2015), 468 N.R. 114; 329 O.A.C. 1; 2015 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Feil (J.G.) (2012), 316 B.C.A.C. 277; 537 W.A.C. 277; 2012 BCCA 110, appld. [para. 24].
R. v. Peavoy (D.M.) (1997), 101 O.A.C. 304; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 226; 34 O.R.(3d) 620 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. White (D.R.) (2011), 412 N.R. 305; 300 B.C.A.C. 165; 509 W.AC. 165; 2011 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Dennis (1990), 59 C.C.C.(3d) 106; 1990 CanLII 665 (B.C.C.A.), dist. [para. 32].
R. v. Belliveau (L.J.P.) (2005), 212 B.C.A.C. 279; 350 W.A.C. 279; 2005 BCCA 283, appld. [para. 32].
R. v. Jaw (S.G.), [2009] 3 S.C.R. 26; 393 N.R. 246; 464 A.R. 149; 2009 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 37].
R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 40].
R. v. Sunshine (D.C.) (2013), 335 B.C.A.C. 55; 573 W.A.C. 55; 2013 BCCA 102, leave to appeal refused (2013), 466 N.R. 385 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 53].
R. v. Rojas (M.A.) et al. (2008), 380 N.R. 211; 260 B.C.A.C. 258; 439 W.A.C. 258; 2008 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 55].
R. v. Evans (A.W.) (2012), 321 B.C.A.C. 295; 547 W.A.C. 295; 2012 BCCA 209, leave to appeal refused (2012), 445 N.R. 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 56].
R. v. Campbell (C.) (1995), 82 O.A.C. 153; 24 O.R.(3d) 537 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 686(1)(b)(iii) [para. 33].
Counsel:
K.R. Beatch and R.P. Thirkell, for the appellant;
M.T. Ainslie, Q.C., for the respondent.
This conviction appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 16, 2015, before Newbury, Smith and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In reasons written by Stromberg-Stein, J.A., the Court delivered the following judgment, dated May 14, 2015.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Wiens (K.G.), 2016 BCCA 34
...at trial is an important factor to consider when evaluating complaints raised on appeal: Jacquard at paras. 35-38; R. v. Purchase , 2015 BCCA 211 at paras. 3-4. Also apposite is the judgment of Mr. Justice Doherty in R. v. MacKinnon (1999), 132 C.C.C.(3d) 545 (Ont. C.A.): [27] In Jacquard ,......
-
R. v. Johnston, 2021 BCCA 34
...toward concealing that participation was inessential to the chain of proof. Here, as in R. v. Feil, 2012 BCCA 110, and R. v. Purchase, 2015 BCCA 211, the trial judge’s error is of the first type described in White (2011): it is an error that appears significant in isolation but is in......
-
R. v. Adams (L.J.) et al., [2016] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AU.030
...at trial is an important factor to consider when evaluating complaints raised on appeal: Jacquard at paras. 35-38; R. v. Purchase , 2015 BCCA 211 at paras. 3-4. [20] Mr. Justice Frankel observed in R. v. Hume , 2016 BCCA 105, that trial counsel's failure to object to the relevant (impugned)......
-
R. v. Atzenberger, 2018 BCCA 296
...at trial is an important factor to consider when evaluating complaints raised on appeal: Jacquard at paras. 35-38; R. v. Purchase, 2015 BCCA 211 at paras. [131] The appellant says the judge showed bias and erred in failing to give weight to the appellant’s evidence regarding the date and ti......
-
R. v. Johnston, 2021 BCCA 34
...toward concealing that participation was inessential to the chain of proof. Here, as in R. v. Feil, 2012 BCCA 110, and R. v. Purchase, 2015 BCCA 211, the trial judge’s error is of the first type described in White (2011): it is an error that appears significant in isolation but is in......
-
R. v. M.R.H., 2019 BCCA 39
...at trial is an important factor to consider when evaluating complaints raised on appeal: Jacquard at paras. 35‑38; R. v. Purchase, 2015 BCCA 211 at paras. [22] Mr. Justice Frankel, for the Court, endorsed this approach in R. v. Hume, 2016 BCCA 105 at para. 20. He emphasized that an appellat......
-
R. v. Alexander (J.A.N.), 2015 BCCA 484
...Jacquard (C.O.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314; 207 N.R. 246; 157 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 462 A.P.R. 161, refd to. [para. 111]. R. v. Purchase (R.D.) (2015), 372 B.C.A.C. 182; 640 W.A.C. 182; 2015 BCCA 211, refd to. [para. T. Paisana and M. Shah, for the appellant; D. Layton, for the respondent. This appeal ......
-
R. v. Wiens (K.G.), 2016 BCCA 34
...at trial is an important factor to consider when evaluating complaints raised on appeal: Jacquard at paras. 35-38; R. v. Purchase , 2015 BCCA 211 at paras. 3-4. Also apposite is the judgment of Mr. Justice Doherty in R. v. MacKinnon (1999), 132 C.C.C.(3d) 545 (Ont. C.A.): [27] In Jacquard ,......