R. v. Sims, (1992) 139 N.R. 305 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 27, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 139 N.R. 305 (SCC);75 CCC (3d) 278;[1992] 2 SCR 858;1992 CanLII 77 (SCC);15 CR (4th) 279;139 NR 305;10 BCAC 94

R. v. Sims (1992), 139 N.R. 305 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Michael Gary Sims (appellant) v. R. (respondent)

(22443)

Indexed As: R. v. Sims

Supreme Court of Canada

Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,

McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.

August 27, 1992.

Summary:

The accused was convicted on a murder charge by a judge and jury. The accused appealed on the ground that he was preju­diced by the trial judge's exhortation to the deadlocked jury.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 64 C.C.C.(3d) 403 dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 4391

Procedure - Jury charge - Redirection or further direction - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 4391.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4391.1

Procedure - Jury charge - Deadlocked jury exhortation - A jury was deadlocked on a murder charge and the trial judge at 9:04 p.m. in his otherwise fair exhortation said: "I suggest if you accept the evidence of Sergeant Ross the Crown has a very powerful case" - The jury deliberated for another hour, then retired - They returned a guilty verdict after an hour's deliberation next morning - The Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial and stated the rule that "a trial judge ought not to offer his or her opinion on the facts to a dead­locked jury, in the course of an exhorta­tion, except to the extent that the jury has indicated the need for assistance on some particular point."

Criminal Law - Topic 4391.1

Procedure - Jury charge - Deadlocked jury exhortation - The Supreme Court of Canada noted that an exhortation to a deadlocked jury is generi­cally different from a charge to the jury and that its pur-pose "is to impress on the jury the need to listen to each other and consider each other's views in order to avoid disagree-ment based on fixed, inflex­ible perceptions of the evidence that one or other of them may have developed"; it focuses on the process of deliberation itself, not on giving assistance on the legal issues and their re-lation to the facts.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Palmer, [1970] 3 C.C.C. 402 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [paras. 8, 17].

R. v. Boulet, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 332; 15 N.R. 541, consd. [para. 12].

R. v. Littlejohn and Tirabasso (1978), 41 C.C.C.(2d) 161 (O.C.A.), consd. [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Salhany, Canadian Criminal Procedure (5th Ed. 1989), pp. 291-292 [para. 12].

Counsel:

David J. Martin, for the appellant accused;

Austin F. Cullen, for the respondent Crown.

Solicitors of Record:

David J. Martin, for the appellant accused;

Ministry of the Attorney General, New Westminster, B.C., for the respondent Crown.

This case was heard on June 15, 1992, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On August 27, 1992, McLachlin, J., delivered the following judgment for the court in both official languages: