R. v. Seymour (J.), (1995) 56 B.C.A.C. 173 (CA)

• Judge: McEachern, C.J.B.C., Lambert and Gibbs, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: January 17, 1995
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1995), 56 B.C.A.C. 173 (CA)

R. v. Seymour (J.) (1995), 56 B.C.A.C. 173 (CA);

    92 W.A.C. 173

MLB headnote and full text

Regina (respondent) v. John Seymour (appellant)

(VI01894)

Indexed As: R. v. Seymour (J.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

McEachern, C.J.B.C., Lambert and Gibbs, JJ.A.

March 2, 1995.

Summary:

The accused was convicted by a jury of second degree murder. He appealed against conviction.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Lambert, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1265

Murder - Jury charge - A highly intoxi­cated accused stabbed his common law wife to death - When charging the jury on intent (where the accused intended to cause bodily harm knowing it was likely to cause death and was reckless whether death ensued), the judge instructed the jury on the foreseeability of consequences only after they requested a recharge on intent - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the recharge was not sparse and the use of the word "ability" did not direct attention away from the actual intent of the accused - The judge made it abundantly clear that the relevant intent was the actual intent of the accused at the time of the offence - The jury was adequately instructed on foreseeability of conse­quences and intent - See paragraphs 12 to 24.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. MacKinlay (1986), 15 O.A.C. 241; 28 C.C.C.(3d) 306 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Canute (S.F.) (1993), 25 B.C.A.C. 277; 43 W.A.C. 277; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 403 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Campbell (1983), 45 N.B.R.(2d) 299; 118 A.P.R. 299 (C.A.), agreed with [para. 49].

R. v. Giannotti (1956), 115 C.C.C. 203 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard, [1920] A.C. 479 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Korzepa (1991), 64 C.C.C.(3d) 489 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Cooper (1993), 146 N.R. 367; 103 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 209; 326 A.P.R. 209; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Robinson (D.) (1994), 48 B.C.A.C. 161; 78 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Cormier (R.) (1993), 59 Q.A.C. 1; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 163 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Bishop (L.G.) (1994), 149 A.R. 222 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Desjardins, [1993] N.W.T.J. No. 124 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Dumais (A.V.) (1993), 116 Sask.R. 217; 59 W.A.C. 217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Keller (M.F.) (1993), 66 O.A.C. 388 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Wilste (J.W.) and Yarema (M.W.) (1994), 72 O.A.C. 226; 19 O.R.(3d) 379 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Allen (B.H.) (1994), 120 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 188; 373 A.P.R. 188 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 229(a) [para. 38]; sect. 229(a)(i) [paras. 38, 40, 79]; sect. 229(a)(ii) [paras. 7, 12, 32, 38, 40, 42, 52, 66-67, 70, 73-75, 79].

Counsel:

B. Rory B. Morahan, for the appellant;

Dirk Ryneveld, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 17, 1995, before McEachern, C.J.B.C., Lambert and Gibbs, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on March 2, 1995, and the follow­ing opinions were filed:

McEachern, C.J.B.C. (Gibbs, J.A., con­curring) - see pragraphs 1 to 29;

Lambert, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 30 to 82.