R. v. Sellars,

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Chouinard, JJ.
• Citation: (1980), 32 N.R. 70 (SCC),JE 80-122,[1980] SCJ No 9 (QL),20 CR (3d) 381,[1980] CarswellQue 34,32 NR 70,110 DLR (3d) 629,4 WCB 421,1980 CanLII 166 (SCC),52 CCC (2d) 345,[1980] 1 SCR 527
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 07 February 1980

R. v. Sellars (1980), 32 N.R. 70 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Sellars

Indexed As: R. v. Sellars

Supreme Court of Canada

Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Chouinard, JJ.

February 7, 1980.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of murder. The accused was convicted by a judge and jury. The accused appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal.

The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5512

Evidence - Testimony of accomplices - Danger of reliance on testimony of an accomplice - What constitutes an accomplice - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that an accessory after the fact is an accomplice for the purpose of warning a jury of the danger of reliance on the testimony of an accomplice.

Criminal Law - Topic 4354

Procedure - Charge or directions to a jury - Directions regarding evidence of accomplices - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that an accessory after the fact is an accomplice for the purpose of warning a jury of the danger of reliance on the testimony of an accomplice.

Criminal Law - Topic 5511

Evidence - Testimony of accomplices - Caution to jury of danger of reliance on testimony of accomplice - What constitutes a caution - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to portions of a jury charge which constituted a caution or a warning to a jury (see paragraphs 19 to 22).

Criminal Law - Topic 57

General principles - Protection against self incrimination - Unfavourable inference from accused's failure to testify - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the accused's failure to testify and explain inculpatory facts and considered such a failure in deciding whether to apply s. 613(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 18, 23 and 24).

Cases Noticed:

Paradis v. R., 13 N.R. 251; [1978] 1 S.C.R. 264, refd to. [paras. 3 and 28].

Provincial Secretary of Prince Edward Island v. Egan, [1941] S.C.R. 396, refd to. [paras. 5 and 30].

Schwartz v. The Queen, 8 N.R. 585; [1977] 1 S.C.R. 673, refd to. [paras. 6 and 31].

Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, refd to. [paras. 7 and 32].

R. v. Zelensky, 21 N.R. 372; [1978] 2 S.C.R. 940, refd to. [paras. 7 and 32].

Attorney General of Quebec v. Cohen, 27 N.R. 344, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 305, refd to. [paras. 8 and 33].

Depagie and The Queen, Re (1977), 1 A.R. 602; 32 C.C.C.(2d) 89, refd to. [paras. 9 and 34].

Ottawa v. Nepean Township et al., [1943] 3 D.L.R. 802, refd to. [paras. 10 and 35].

Avon v. R., [1971] S.C.R. 650, refd to. [paras. 24 and 49].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 613(1)(b) [paras. 15 and 40].

Counsel:

Jean R. Salois, for the appellant;

Ronald Schachter, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by MARTLAND, RITCHIE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY and CHOUINARD, JJ. of the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario on December 5, 1979.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by CHOUINARD, J. on February 7, 1980 - see paragraphs 1 to 25 (English language judgment) and paragraphs 26 to 50 (French language judgment).