R. v. Sutton (K.M.), (1999) 222 N.B.R.(2d) 78 (CA)

• Judge: Rice, Turnbull and Drapeau, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: February 10, 1999
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1999), 222 N.B.R.(2d) 78 (CA);1999 CanLII 13127 (NB CA);222 NBR (2d) 78;140 CCC (3d) 336;[1999] NBJ No 540 (QL);570 APR 78

R. v. Sutton (K.M.) (1999), 222 N.B.R.(2d) 78 (CA);

    222 R.N.-B.(2e) 78; 570 A.P.R. 78

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [1999] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.019

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Kingsley Michael Sutton (respondent)

(166/98/CA)

Indexed As: R. v. Sutton (K.M.)

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Rice, Turnbull and Drapeau, JJ.A.

November 25, 1999.

Summary:

Sutton was found not guilty by judge and jury of trafficking in cocaine, contrary to s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Sub­stances Act, and not guilty of possession of the proceeds of crime, contrary to s. 8(1). The Crown appealed, arguing that the trial judge made several errors of law when instructing the jury. Particularly, the Crown asserted that the judge's charge was not balanced and that he did not put the Crown's case to the jury fairly and accurately.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, Rice, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 2682

Conspiracies - Conspirator's exception to hearsay rule - The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal of trafficking in cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial - When instructing the jury the trial judge, inter alia, failed to properly outline how the jury was to deal with the hearsay testi­mony of a conspirator and the circum­stances under which the jury could con­sider the conspirator's statements as evi­dence of the accused's guilt - See para­graphs 13 to 19.

Criminal Law - Topic 2682

Conspiracies - Conspirator's exception to hearsay rule - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal reviewed the correct approach in dealing with a co-conspirator's hearsay statements in the context of a trial for a substantive offence - See paragraphs 16 to 36.

Criminal Law - Topic 4352

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Direction on evidence gen­erally - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal noted that while it was rarely necessary for a trial judge to recapitulate in detail all of the evidence presented to the jury, it was of critical importance that his or her charge contain a fair and bal­anced review of the salient features of the evi­dence and that it relate those features to the questions that the jury was tasked to resolve - See paragraph 26.

Criminal Law - Topic 4354

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding pleas or evidence of witnesses, co-accused and accomplices - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 2682 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4391.2

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions following ques­tions by jury - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal noted that when answering a jury's inquiries, the trial judge must pro­vide answers that were both responsive and comprehensive - "This is so because the jury's inquiries reflect its confusion and concerns. Any error in the answers pro­vided by the judge 'become all the more damaging'" - See paragraph 33.

Criminal Law - Topic 4866

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Misapprehension of evidence -Gulliver, a recovering cocaine addict and alcoholic with a fairly extensive criminal record, was enlisted by the R.C.M.P. to act as an undercover agent - During his ser­vice, Merrick introduced Gulliver to Sutton - Gulliver alleged that he purchased one pound of cocaine from Sutton for $24,000 - However, Sutton neither personally deliv­ered the pound of cocaine to Gulliver, nor did he receive the money - Gulliver tes­tified that Sutton supervised the trans­action from the back seat of a taxi cab near the exchange point - Sutton and Merrick were both charged with trafficking in cocaine and with possession of the proceeds of crime (the $24,000) - Sutton was acquitted - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal - The trial judge, among other errors, seri­ously mis­apprehended the evidence when he stated in his charge to the jury that "this whole case rides on Gulliver" - While Gulliver's testimony was important, it was not the whole of the Crown's case - See para­graphs 1 to 36.

Criminal Law - Topic 4957

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials -Grounds - Misapprehension of evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4866 ].

Cases Noticed:

Koufis v. R., [1941] S.C.R. 481; 76 C.C.C. 161, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Arseneau (1977), 17 N.B.R.(2d) 292; 23 A.P.R. 292 (C.A.), affd. [1979] 2 S.C.R. 136; 26 N.R. 226; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 390; 51 A.P.R. 390, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Carter, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 938; 47 N.R. 288; 46 N.B.R.(2d) 142; 121 A.P.R. 142; 31 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [paras. 15, 44].

R. v. Jamieson (1989), 90 N.S.R.(2d) 164; 230 A.P.R. 164; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 287 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 18, 47].

R. v. Buell (K.D.) (1996), 146 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 173; 456 A.P.R. 173 (P.E.I. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Rowbotham et al. (1984), 42 C.R.(3d) 164 (Ont. H.C.), revd. (1988), 25 O.A.C. 321; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92; 79 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 590; 15 C.R.(4th) 133, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 19 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Poirier (1986), 71 N.B.R.(2d) 9; 182 A.P.R. 9 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 19, 52].

R. v. Bouvier (1984), 11 C.C.C.(3d) 257 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1985] 2 S.C.R. 485; 64 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Evans (C.D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 653; 158 N.R. 278; 145 A.R. 81; 55 W.A.C. 81; 108 D.L.R.(4th) 32, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Arp (B.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339; 232 N.R. 317; 114 B.C.A.C. 1; 186 W.A.C. 1; 166 D.L.R.(4th) 296, refd to. [paras. 21, 50].

R. v. Gray (R.) and Gray (H.) (1998), 208 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 531 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 25, 50].

R. v. Jacquard (C.O.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314; 207 N.R. 246; 157 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 462 A.P.R. 161; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 26].

Azoulay v. R., [1952] 2 S.C.R. 495, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Yanover and Gerol (No. 1) (1985), 9 O.A.C. 93; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 300 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Vetrovec; R. v. Gaja, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811; 41 N.R. 606; [1983] 1 W.W.R. 193; 27 C.R.(3d) 304; 136 D.L.R.(3d) 89; 67 C.C.C.(2d) 1, refd to. [paras. 28, 43].

R. v. Bevan and Griffith, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 599; 154 N.R. 245; 64 O.A.C. 165; 104 D.L.R.(4th) 180; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 310; 21 C.R.(4th) 277, refd to. [paras. 28, 53].

R. v. Joyce (K.R.) (1998), 203 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 518 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Babinski (1991), 50 O.A.C. 341; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 187 (C.A.), affd. [1992] 3 S.C.R. 467; 143 N.R. 387; 59 O.A.C. 39; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 286, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. W.D.S., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 521; 171 N.R. 360; 157 A.R. 321; 77 W.A.C. 321; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Pétel (C.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 3; 162 N.R. 137; 59 Q.A.C. 81; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 26 C.R.(4th) 145, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Pepin (1990), 98 N.S.R.(2d) 238; 263 A.P.R. 238; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 355 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Shalala (R.) (1998), 198 N.B.R.(2d) 298; 506 A.P.R. 298 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Lord (D.C.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 747; 178 N.R. 152; 53 B.C.A.C. 243; 87 W.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 50].

Authors and Works Noticed:

MacFarlane, Bruce A., Drug Offences in Canada (3rd Ed. 1996), pp. 8-27, 8-28, 8-30 [para. 45].

McWilliams, Peter K., Canadian Criminal Evidence (2nd Ed. 1984), p. 610 [para. 43].

McWilliams, Peter K., Canadian Criminal Evidence (3rd. Ed. 1988) (1999 Supp.), p. 18-16, para. 18:10322 [para. 20].

Paciocco, David M., and Stuesser, Lee, The Law of Evidence (2nd. Ed. 1999), p. 104 [para. 19].

Rosenberg, Marc, Developments in the Law of Evidence: The 1992-1993 Term (1994), 5 Sup. Ct. L. Rev.(2d) 421, p. 463 [para. 28].

Watt, David J., The Law of Electronic Surveillance in Canada (1979), pp. 306, 307, 308, 309 [para. 35].

Counsel:

David M. Lutz, Q.C., for the appellant;

Kingsley Michael Sutton, by written sub­mission.

This appeal was heard on February 10, 1999, before Rice, Turnbull and Drapeau, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Ap­peal. The decision of the court was delivered on November 25, 1999, including the fol­lowing opinions:

Drapeau, J.A. (Turnbull, J.A., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 1 to 38;

Rice, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 39 to 64.