R. v. Swanson (L.J.),
Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
Judge | Newbury, Hall and Saunders, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
Citation | (2002), 173 B.C.A.C. 62 (CA),2002 BCCA 528 |
Date | 19 June 2002 |
R. v. Swanson (L.J.) (2002), 173 B.C.A.C. 62 (CA);
283 W.A.C. 62
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2002] B.C.A.C. TBEd. SE.054
Regina (respondent) v. Lori Jane Swanson (appellant)
(CA028460; 2002 BCCA 528)
Indexed As: R. v. Swanson (L.J.)
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Newbury, Hall and Saunders, JJ.A.
September 20, 2002.
Summary:
The accused was charged with the second degree murder of her husband. A jury found her guilty as charged. The accused appealed from conviction.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial on the charge of second degree murder.
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 charged with the second degree murder of her husband - The trial judge left the defences of self-defence and intoxication with the jury - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the jury charge about the accused's "after the fact" conduct (her conversation with the 911 emergency operator to whom she reported the death), was erroneous - The instruction failed to distinguish how the "after the fact" conduct bore differently on the defences of self-defence and intoxication - The jury could have been left with the impression that simply because the accused lied to the operator about who killed her husband, her intoxication defence should fail - See paragraphs 14 to 23.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Haase (1964), 50 W.W.R.(N.S.) 321 (B.C.C.A.), affd. (1964), 50 W.W.R.(N.S.) 386 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 11].
R. v. Wray, [1970] 4 C.C.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 11].
R. v. Oickle (R.F.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3; 259 N.R. 227; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 585 A.P.R. 201; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 12].
R. v. K.S. (2000), 136 O.A.C. 238; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 247 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].
R. v. S.F.C. - see R. v. Courtereille (S.F.).
R. v. Courtereille (S.F.) (2001), 147 B.C.A.C. 125; 241 W.A.C. 125 (C.A.), dist. [para. 19].
R. v. Bevan and Griffith, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 599; 154 N.R. 245; 64 O.A.C. 165, refd to. [para. 23].
Counsel:
P. McMurray, for the appellant;
J. DeWitt-Van Oosten, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard before Newbury, Hall and Saunders, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, at Victoria, British Columbia, on June 19, 2002. The decision of the court was delivered by Hall, J.A., at Vancouver, British Columbia, on September 20, 2002.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Table of cases
...112, 675 R v Swanek (2005), 28 CR (6th) 93 (Ont CA) .................................................... 433 R v Swanson, 2002 BCCA 528 .............................................................................. 33 R v Swanston (1982), 25 CR (3d) 385 (BC CA) ...................................
-
The Basics of Admissibility and the Evaluation of Evidence
...in information about matters other than those that need 4 Calnen , above note 2 at para 113, Martin J. 5 See, e.g., R v Swanson , 2002 BCCA 528. 6 See, e.g., R v Arp , [1998] 3 SCR 339 at para 38 [ Arp ]. 7 R v Truscott (2006), 213 CCC (3d) 183 (Ont CA) at para 22 [ Truscott ]. 8 See R v Co......
-
R. v. Angelis (D.),
...53]. R. v. White (R.G.) and Côté (Y.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72; 227 N.R. 326; 112 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 53]. R. v. Swanson (L.J.) (2002), 173 B.C.A.C. 62; 283 W.A.C. 62; 168 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2002 BCCA 528, refd to. [para. R. v. Rodrigue (K.) (2007), 245 B.C.A.C. 19; 405 W.A.C. 19; 223 C.C.C.(3d......
-
R. v. Kayaitok (B.),
...in (1994), 95 C.C.C. (3d) 74 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Peavoy, at para. 34; R. v. White (1998), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72, at p. 89; R. v. Swanson, 2002 BCCA 528, 168 C.C.C. (3d) 1, at para. 18; R. v. Rodrigue, 2007 YKCA 9, 223 C.C.C. (3d) 53, at paras. 47-49; R. v. Figueroa, 2008 ONCA 106, 232 C.C.C. (3......
-
R. v. Angelis (D.),
...53]. R. v. White (R.G.) and Côté (Y.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72; 227 N.R. 326; 112 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 53]. R. v. Swanson (L.J.) (2002), 173 B.C.A.C. 62; 283 W.A.C. 62; 168 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2002 BCCA 528, refd to. [para. R. v. Rodrigue (K.) (2007), 245 B.C.A.C. 19; 405 W.A.C. 19; 223 C.C.C.(3d......
-
R. v. Kayaitok (B.),
...in (1994), 95 C.C.C. (3d) 74 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Peavoy, at para. 34; R. v. White (1998), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72, at p. 89; R. v. Swanson, 2002 BCCA 528, 168 C.C.C. (3d) 1, at para. 18; R. v. Rodrigue, 2007 YKCA 9, 223 C.C.C. (3d) 53, at paras. 47-49; R. v. Figueroa, 2008 ONCA 106, 232 C.C.C. (3......
-
Table of cases
...112, 675 R v Swanek (2005), 28 CR (6th) 93 (Ont CA) .................................................... 433 R v Swanson, 2002 BCCA 528 .............................................................................. 33 R v Swanston (1982), 25 CR (3d) 385 (BC CA) ...................................
-
The Basics of Admissibility and the Evaluation of Evidence
...in information about matters other than those that need 4 Calnen , above note 2 at para 113, Martin J. 5 See, e.g., R v Swanson , 2002 BCCA 528. 6 See, e.g., R v Arp , [1998] 3 SCR 339 at para 38 [ Arp ]. 7 R v Truscott (2006), 213 CCC (3d) 183 (Ont CA) at para 22 [ Truscott ]. 8 See R v Co......