R. v. Swite (C.W.), 2011 BCCA 54
| Judge | Prowse, Kirkpatrick and Chiasson, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
| Case Date | January 13, 2011 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | 2011 BCCA 54;(2011), 299 B.C.A.C. 168 (CA) |
R. v. Swite (C.W.) (2011), 299 B.C.A.C. 168 (CA);
508 W.A.C. 168
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2011] B.C.A.C. TBEd. FE.031
Regina (respondent) v. Corey Wolf Swite (appellant)
(CA036942; 2011 BCCA 54)
Indexed As: R. v. Swite (C.W.)
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Prowse, Kirkpatrick and Chiasson, JJ.A.
February 8, 2011.
Summary:
The accused was convicted of first degree murder. He appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred by not following the mandatory procedure set out in s. 640(2) of the Criminal Code for the conduct of the challenge for cause of potential jurors (use of rotating triers).
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.
Criminal Law - Topic 4316
Procedure - Jury - Challenges for cause - The accused was convicted of first degree murder - He appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred by not following the mandatory procedure set out in s. 640(2) of the Criminal Code for the conduct of the challenge for cause of potential jurors - The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial - The trial judge erred in his interpretation and application of s. 640 - He embarked on the challenge for cause process using static triers of the truth of the challenges in circumstances where the accused had not only not applied for static triers, but where the accused had made it clear through his counsel that his choice was for rotating triers - He was concerned about the jury's impartiality given that he was a self-identified "Native Indian" - The trial judge did not have inherent jurisdiction to make an order for the use of static triers ex mero motu in the face of the express language of ss. 640(2.1) and (2.2) - The option of static triers was only available to the court under ss. 640(2.1) and (2.2) upon an accused's application - In the absence of such an application, s. 640(2), which provided for rotating triers, was the default position which governed - The procedure adopted by the trial judge was fundamentally flawed - It resulted in the accused being tried by an improperly constituted court - The manner in which the error occurred ultimately deprived the court of jurisdiction - The error was incapable of being cured under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) or (iv) - Alternatively, if the error was curable, the accused suffered presumed and actual prejudice in being denied his choice of rotating triers - It could not be said what the result would have been but for the error.
Criminal Law - Topic 5035
Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - General - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4316 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 5038
Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - Procedural error - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4316 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 5045
Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - What constitutes a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4316 ].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Vincent - see Ontario (Attorney General) v. Vincent.
Ontario (Attorney General) v. Vincent, 2007 ONCA 546, leave to appeal refused (2008), 386 N.R. 391; 253 O.A.C. 397 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 33].
R. v. Rowbotham et al. (1988), 25 O.A.C. 321; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 63 C.R.(3d) 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].
R. v. James, [1969] 1 C.C.C. 278 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].
R. v. Bain, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 91; 133 N.R. 1; 51 O.A.C. 161; 69 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 33].
R. v. Khan (M.A.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823; 279 N.R. 79; 160 Man.R.(2d) 161; 262 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 86, refd to. [para. 43].
R. v. Barrow, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 694; 81 N.R. 321; 87 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 222 A.P.R. 271; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 487, refd to. [para. 48].
R. v. Sandham (2009), 248 C.C.C.(3d) 46 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 50].
R. v. Huard (S.G.) et al., [2009] O.T.C. Uned. 164; 247 C.C.C.(3d) 526 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 52].
R. v. White (O.) et al. [2009] O.T.C. Uned. J23 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 52].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 640(2), sect. 640(2.1), sect. 640(2.2) [para. 13].
Counsel:
J.J. Blazina, for the appellant;
A. Budlovsky, Q.C., for the respondent.
This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 13, 2011, by Prowse, Kirkpatrick and Chiasson, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Prowse, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment of the court on February 8, 2011.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 23-27)
...ONCA 650, leave to appeal refused, [2018] S.C.C.A. No. 216, R. v. Murray, 2017 ONCA 393, R. v. Noureddine, 2015 ONCA 770, R. v. Swite, 2011 BCCA 54, R. v. Evans, 2019 ONCA 715, R. v. A.C., 2018 ONCA 333, R. v. Figliola, 2011 ONCA 457, R. v. Last, 2009 SCC 45, R. v. Puddicombe, 2013 ONCA 506......
-
Appeals
...amounts to or is based on an error of law, it falls under ss. 686(1)( a )(ii) and 686(1)( b )(iii). 96 See, for example, R v Swite , 2011 BCCA 54, in which there was an error in the manner by which jurors were selected. The British Columbia Court of Appeal found that this was a procedural i......
-
Table of cases
...R v Swaminathan, 2015 ONCJ 394.....................................................................440 R v Swite, 2011 BCCA 54 .................................................................................... 582 R v Switzer, 2014 ABCA 129 ......................................................
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 29 August 2, 2019)
...leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused (2002), 159 C.C.C. (3d) vi (note), R. v. Brown (2002), 166 C.C.C. (3d) 570 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Swite, 2011 BCCA 54, 268 C.C.C. (3d) 184, R. v. Khan, 2001 SCC 86, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823, R. v. Katoch, 2009 ONCA 621, 246 C.C.C. (3d) 423, R. v. Betker (1997), 115 ......
-
R. v. Noureddine (C.), (2015) 341 O.A.C. 130 (CA)
...v. Cloutier, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 709; 28 N.R. 1, appld. [para. 24]. R. v. W.V., 2007 ONCA 546, refd to. [para. 35]. R. v. Swite (C.W.) (2011), 299 B.C.A.C. 168; 508 W.A.C. 168; 268 C.C.C.(3d) 184; 2011 BCCA 54, agreed with [para. R. v. Jasar, 2014 ONSC 7528, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 2]. R. ......
-
R. v. Evans, 2019 ONCA 715
...57-58; Husbands, at para. 41; R. v. W.V., 2007 ONCA 546, at para. 22, leave to appeal refused, [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 615; R. v. Swite, 2011 BCCA 54, 268 C.C.C. (3d) 184, at para. 28. The Principles Applied [51] As I will explain, I would not give effect to this ground of appeal. [52] To begin......
-
R. v. Province, 2019 ONCA 638
...mandatory Criminal Code requirements: W.V., at para. 22; Noureddine, at para. 38; Murray, at para. 47; Riley, at para. 110; R. v. Swite, 2011 BCCA 54, 268 C.C.C. (3d) 184, at para. 28. [71] All this is to say that the jury selection process, with its unforeseen and unforeseeable contingenci......
-
R. v. Murray, 2017 ONCA 393
...trial of the challenge for cause, static triers may not be used to try the truth of the challenge: Noureddine, at para. 37; R. v. Swite, 2011 BCCA 54, 268 C.C.C. (3d) 184, at paras. 28-30. [47] The Noureddine court acknowledged the undoubted authority of a trial judge to manage the jury sel......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 23-27)
...ONCA 650, leave to appeal refused, [2018] S.C.C.A. No. 216, R. v. Murray, 2017 ONCA 393, R. v. Noureddine, 2015 ONCA 770, R. v. Swite, 2011 BCCA 54, R. v. Evans, 2019 ONCA 715, R. v. A.C., 2018 ONCA 333, R. v. Figliola, 2011 ONCA 457, R. v. Last, 2009 SCC 45, R. v. Puddicombe, 2013 ONCA 506......
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 29 August 2, 2019)
...leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused (2002), 159 C.C.C. (3d) vi (note), R. v. Brown (2002), 166 C.C.C. (3d) 570 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Swite, 2011 BCCA 54, 268 C.C.C. (3d) 184, R. v. Khan, 2001 SCC 86, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823, R. v. Katoch, 2009 ONCA 621, 246 C.C.C. (3d) 423, R. v. Betker (1997), 115 ......
-
R V. Noureddine: Improper Use Of Static Jurors And The Scope Of The Harmless Error Provision
...being brought under s.640(2.1). Absent that application, static triers could not be used in the challenge for cause process: R v Swite, 2011 BCCA 54, 268 CCC (3d) 184, at paras The Crown argued that s.686(1)(b)(iv), the harmless error provision, was applicable. Pursuant to this curative pro......
-
Appeals
...amounts to or is based on an error of law, it falls under ss. 686(1)( a )(ii) and 686(1)( b )(iii). 96 See, for example, R v Swite , 2011 BCCA 54, in which there was an error in the manner by which jurors were selected. The British Columbia Court of Appeal found that this was a procedural i......
-
Table of cases
...R v Swaminathan, 2015 ONCJ 394.....................................................................440 R v Swite, 2011 BCCA 54 .................................................................................... 582 R v Switzer, 2014 ABCA 129 ......................................................