R. v. Squires (E.), (2002) 209 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 99 (NFCA)

• Judge: O'Neill, Marshall and Cameron, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Newfoundland)
• Case Date: May 22, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2002), 209 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 99 (NFCA)

R. v. Squires (E.) (2002), 209 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 99 (NFCA);

    626 A.P.R. 99

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. JA.020

Eric Squires (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(98/70; 2002 NFCA 4)

Indexed As: R. v. Squires (E.)

Newfoundland and Labrador

Supreme Court

Court of Appeal

O'Neill, Marshall and Cameron, JJ.A.

January 24, 2002.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of first degree murder following a trial by judge and jury. The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in his instructions on the mean­ing of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in failing to address the offence of manslaugh­ter, and in failing to address the probative value of the accused's post-offence conduct.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, O'Neill, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1314

Manslaughter - Jury charge - The accused was convicted of first degree murder - The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in failing to address the offence of manslaughter - He argued that based on his consumption of alcohol on the day of the murder as well as the evi­dence of struggle, the trial judge should have instructed the jury that manslaughter was an alternative verdict - The New­foundland and Labrador Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in failing to instruct the jury regarding man­slaughter where the test of "air of reality" was not met - See paragraphs 47 to 56.

Criminal Law - Topic 4351

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Direction regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt - The accused was convicted of first degree murder - The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in his jury instruc­tions on the meaning of proof beyond a reasonable doubt - In particular, the accused argued that the judge failed to explain that reasonable doubt had a special meaning in its legal context, to state that the standard of proof was greater than the balance of probabilities, and to tell the jury that if they were "sure" that the accused committed the offence they should convict - The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal reviewed the charge on reason­able doubt in light of recent jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada - The court held that the instruction, though not ideal, was adequate in the circumstances of this case - The instruction substantially complied with the applicable jurisprudence - See paragraphs 9 to 46, 68 to 175.

Criminal Law - Topic 4399.9

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions re flight and other post-offence behaviour of accused - The accused was convicted of first degree murder - The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in failing to address the probative value of the ac­cused's post-offence conduct - The New­foundland and Labrador Court of Appeal rejected this ground of appeal - The court stated that while it would have been pre­ferable for the trial judge to say the ac­cused's post-offence conduct was relevant to the identity of the accused as the person who killed the victim and did not relate to whether the crime was murder in the first or second degree, his failure to do so in this case was not an error - See paragraphs 57 to 67.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [paras. 9, 74, 179].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [paras. 9, 209].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 10, 84, 191].

R. v. Bisson (Y.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 306; 222 N.R. 365, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 2].

R. v. Satkunananthan (S.) et al. (2001), 143 O.A.C. 1; 152 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Wang (J.) et al. (2001), 144 O.A.C. 115; 153 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Pilgrim (R.L.) (2001), 150 O.A.C. 394 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Cho (M.W.) (2000), 145 B.C.A.C. 208; 237 W.A.C. 208 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Beauchamp (A.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 720; 262 N.R. 119, refd to. [paras. 15, 198].

R. v. Noël (2001) 156 C.C.C.(3d) 17 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Avetysan (A.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 745; 262 N.R. 96; 195 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 338; 586 A.P.R. 338, refd to. [paras. 17, 94, 193].

R. v. Russell (M.E.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 731; 261 N.R. 339; 266 A.R. 379; 228 W.A.C. 379, refd to. [paras. 18, 198].

R. v. Pan (R.W.); R. v. Sawyer (B.) (2001), 270 N.R. 317; 147 O.A.C. 1; 155 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Rhee (D.G.) (2001), 275 N.R. 281; 157 B.C.A.C. 30; 256 W.A.C. 30; 158 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Taylor (C.R.) (2001), 143 O.A.C. 351; 154 C.C.C.(3d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. F.R. - see R. v. Rees (F.).

R. v. Rees (F.) (2001), 198 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 68; 595 A.P.R. 68 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 31, 130].

R. v. Lavoie (E.K.) (2000), 271 A.R. 321; 234 W.A.C. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 4].

R. v. W.D.S., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 521; 171 N.R. 360; 157 A.R. 321; 77 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Haroun (J.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 593; 209 N.R. 6, reving. (1996), 209 N.R. 16; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 263 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Good (J.S.) (1998), 102 B.C.A.C. 177; 166 W.A.C. 177 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Fowler (W.L.) (1993), 35 B.C.A.C. 307; 57 W.A.C. 307 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. C.W.H. (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 205; 7 W.A.C. 205; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 146 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40, footnote 5].

R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701; 165 N.R. 1; 70 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Lemky (T.R.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 757; 194 N.R. 1; 73 B.C.A.C. 1; 120 W.A.C. 1; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 137, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Park (D.G.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 836; 183 N.R. 81; 169 A.R. 241; 97 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Arcangioli (G.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 129; 162 N.R. 280; 69 O.A.C. 26, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. White (R.G.) and Côté (Y.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72; 227 N.R. 326; 112 O.A.C. 1; 125 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 60, footnote 7].

R. v. Wiltse (J.W.) and Yarema (M.W.) (1994), 72 O.A.C. 226; 19 O.R.(3d) 379 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Diu (A.B.) et al. (2000), 133 O.A.C. 201; 49 O.R.(3d) 40 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Peavoy (D.M.) (1997), 101 O.A.C. 304; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 226 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Levasseur (J.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 518; 205 N.R. 389, reving. (1994), 89 C.C.C.(3d) 508 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Lepage (J.P.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 654; 178 N.R. 81; 79 O.A.C. 191, refd to. [para. 80].

Woolmington v. Director of Public Pros­ecutions, [1935] A.C. 462, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Oraniuk (1990), 84 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 157; 262 A.P.R. 157 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Campbell (1978), 38 C.C.C.(2d) 6 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Boucher, [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [para. 98].

Power v. Grant (1952), 30 M.P.R. 131 (Nfld. S.C.), refd to. [para. 168].

Gould Estate, Re (1958), 41 M.P.R. 337 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 169].

R. v. Brydon (J.L.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 253; 188 N.R. 321; 65 B.C.A.C. 81; 106 W.A.C. 81, reving. (1995), 55 B.C.A.C. 6; 90 W.A.C. 6 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 186].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Special Ed. 1983), Book IV, c. 27, p. 352 [para. 80].

Kenny's Outline of Criminal Law (15th Ed. 1947) (Revised), generally [para. 84].

Mewitt, Alan W., An Introduction to the Criminal Process in Canada (1988), p. 138 [para. 105].

Morton, James C., and Hutchison, Scott C., The Presumption of Innocence (1987), c. 5, p. 83 [para. 88].

Counsel:

Derek Hogan, for the appellant;

Kathleen Healey, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 22, 2001, by O'Neill, Marshall and Cameron, JJ.A., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was rendered on January 24, 2002, and the following opinions were filed:

Cameron, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 73;

Marshall, J.A. - see paragraphs 74 to 175;

O'Neill, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 176 to 220.