R. v. Trombley (E.), (1999) 238 N.R. 95 (SCC)

• Judge: Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: April 23, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 238 N.R. 95 (SCC);238 NR 95;134 CCC (3d) 576;1999 CanLII 681 (SCC);[1999] SCJ No 20 (QL);42 WCB (2d) 340;120 OAC 302;[1999] 1 SCR 757

R. v. Trombley (E.) (1999), 238 N.R. 95 (SCC)

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.R. TBEd. MY.002

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Elaine Trombley (appellant)

(26755)

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

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier,

Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major,

Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.

April 23, 1999.

Summary:

An accused was charged with second degree murder. A jury rejected the accused's defence of self-defence and convicted her of the included offence of manslaughter. The accused appealed, asserting that trial judge erred in his charge to the jury on self-defence under s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Finlayson, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at 110 O.A.C. 329, allowed the appeal, set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial directed on a charge of manslaughter. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order for a new trial on the charge of manslaughter.

Criminal Law - Topic 4370

Procedure - Charge or directions to jury - Directions regarding self-defence - The accused, an abused wife, was charged with the second degree murder of her husband -She pleaded self-defence, indicating that she did not intend to cause serious harm - The trial judge directed the jury that self-defence under s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code applied "even though" the accused intentionally caused death or grievous bodily harm - Furthermore, if the accused had a reasonable apprehension that she would be killed or badly hurt, she could respond "by intending to either kill or cause grievous bodily harm" - The accused was convicted of the included offence of manslaughter - She appealed, asserting that the jury charge was ambigu­ous because it left the jury with the im­pression that s. 34(2) only applied if the conduct was intentional - The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4379

Procedure - Charge or directions to jury - Directions re evidence of credibility of accused - In his jury charge, a trial judge stated that the accused had an interest in the outcome of the trial and that this was a factor to consider when evaluating her testimony - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that isolating the accused in this fashion would invariably be inappropriate as it tended to undermine the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal.

Counsel:

Susan Kyle, for the appellant;

Marie Henein, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Lamer, C.J.C., released the following decision for the court in both official lan­guages on April 23, 1999.