R. v. Unger (K.W.) and Houlahan (T.L.), (1993) 85 Man.R.(2d) 284 (CA)

• Judge: Scott, C.J.M., Huband and Helper, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: July 07, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 284 (CA);1993 CanLII 4409 (MB CA);83 CCC (3d) 228;41 WAC 284;85 Man R (2d) 284

R. v. Unger (K.W.) (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 284 (CA);

    41 W.A.C. 284

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Kyle Wayne Unger (accused/appellant) and Timothy Lawrence Houlahan (accused/appellant)

(Suit Nos. A.R. 92-30-00660; A.R. 92-30-00667)

Indexed As: R. v. Unger (K.W.) and Houlahan (T.L.)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Scott, C.J.M., Huband and Helper, JJ.A.

July 7, 1993.

Summary:

Unger and Houlahan were charged with murder.

After a voir dire to determine the admissi­bility of certain intercepted private commu­nications, the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 82 Man.R.(2d) 244, ruled that the evidence was admissible.

Unger and Houlahan were convicted of first degree murder. Unger appealed on various grounds, including the ground that the intercepted private communications were inadmissible. Houlahan also appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed Unger's appeal. The court allowed Houla­han's appeal and ordered a new trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 1373

Security of the person - Police surveil­lance - Interception of private communi­cations - Unger was charged with first degree murder - The trial judge admitted intercepted private communications between Unger and undercover police after determining that there was a basis for the original authorizations and therefore the requirements of s. 8 of the Charter were met - Unger submitted that even in a case of participant surveillance, failure to com­ply with s. 186(1) of the Criminal Code rendered the evidence inadmissible under s. 189(1) - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was correct in his approach to the issue of admissibility and in his eventual decision - See paragraphs 31 to 55.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - Unger and Houlahan were convicted of first degree murder - Unger testified - Houlahan did not - Unger's counsel commented force­fully on Houlahan's failure to testify - The Manitoba Court of Appeal noted the con­flict between Unger's s. 7 Charter right to make full answer and defence and Houla­han's s. 7 Charter right to remain silent - Unger's counsel was not entitled to invite speculation or the drawing of unwarranted inferences - The trial judge's duty to ensure a fair trial required him to set ac­ceptable boundaries on the comments - See paragraphs 122 to 145.

Civil Rights - Topic 3160

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Right to remain silent - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3160

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Right to remain silent (s. 7) - Murder charges against a suspect were stayed for lack of evidence - Upon his release, undercover police befriended him and intercepted communications between the suspect and police - With this evidence, the suspect was indicted for murder - The Crown introduced the evi­dence obtained from the intercepted com­munications - The accused argued that the evidence was obtained through a "trick" and its admission would violate his right to remain silent (Charter, s. 7) - The Mani­toba Court of Appeal affirmed that the evidence was admissible - The accused was not detained and he was not coerced or tricked - See paragraphs 56 to 79.

Civil Rights - Topic 4302

Protection against self-incrimination - Right to remain silent - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 3160 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4314

Protection against self-incrimination - Inference from accused's failure to testify - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4354

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding pleas or evidence of witnesses, co-accused or accomplices - [See Crimi­nal Law - Topic 5035 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4482

Procedure - Trial - Joint or separate trials of two or more persons - Unger and Hou­lahan were charged with first degree mur­der and jointly tried - The trial judge denied a motion by both accused to sever the trials - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the decision to allow or disal­low severance of trials is discretionary and should be interfered with on appeal only upon demonstration of a manifest injustice - See paragraphs 100 to 110.

Criminal Law - Topic 5035

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if error resulted in no miscar­riage of justice - Unger and Houlahan were convicted of first degree murder - On appeal, Houlahan claimed he was prejudiced by Unger's counsel address to the jury regarding Houlahan's failure to testify and by the trial judge's overstate­ment of the Crown's theory regarding Houlahan's involvement in the crime - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the cumulative effect of the errors resulted in actual prejudice to Houlahan - The court ordered a new trial - See paragraphs 122 to 176.

Criminal Law - Topic 5310

Evidence and witnesses - Inadmissible private communications - Practice - Ad­mission of admissible interceptions - General - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 3160 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5475

Evidence and witnesses - Joint trials - Competence and compellability of co-accused - Unger and Houlahan were charged with first degree murder and jointly tried - Unger testified at trial, repudiated confessions made to undercover police and was extensively cross-examined by counsel for Houlahan - On appeal, Houlahan alleged that he was severely prejudiced by the joint trials, because he could not call Unger as a witness or use Unger's confessions on his behalf (inad­missible as hearsay evidence) - The Man­itoba Court of Appeal held that there was no manifest injustice to Houlahan and rejected this ground of appeal - See para­graphs 111 to 118.

Police - Topic 3101

Powers - Investigation - General - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 3160 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 65 D.L.R.(4th) 240; 71 O.R.(2d) 575n; 74 C.R.(3d) 281, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Lachance, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1490; 116 N.R. 325; 43 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Finlay and Grelette (1985), 11 O.A.C. 279; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 48 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Mack, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 903; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 577; 90 N.R. 173; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 513, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595; 131 N.R. 118; 120 A.R. 189; 8 W.A.C. 189; 8 C.R.R.(2d) 174; [1992] 1 W.W.R. 289; 9 C.R.(4th) 1; 84 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 308, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 49 C.R.R. 114; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Rothman, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640; 35 N.R. 485; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 30, refd to. [para. 67].

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. [para. 80].

R. v. Sophonow (No. 1) (1984), 29 Man.R.(2d) 1; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 272 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Thatcher, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 652; 75 N.R. 198; 57 Sask.R. 113; [1987] 4 W.W.R. 193; 57 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Sparrow (1979), 51 C.C.C.(2d) 443 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. McGill (1986), 15 O.A.C. 266 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Assim (1966), 50 Cr. App. R. 224 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Kennedy and Dowdall (1971), 3 C.C.C.(2d) 58 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Dalzell and Douglas (1979), 15 A.R. 224 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 94].

Miciotto v. United States (1952), 198 F. 2d 951 (D.C. Cir.), refd to. [para. 95].

Pointer v. United States (1894), 151 U.S. 396; 14 S.Ct. 410, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Lane and Ross (1969), 6 C.R.N.S. 273 (Ont. S.C.), refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Agawa and Mallet (1975), 28 C.C.C.(2d) 379 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Weir (No. 4) (1899), 3 C.C.C. 351 (Que. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. McFall, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 321; [1981] 2 W.W.R. 1; 27 N.R. 420; 48 C.C.C.(2d) 225; 100 D.L.R.(3d) 403, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Grondkowski and Malinowski (1946), 31 Cr. App. R. 116, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. O'Brien, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 591; 16 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 590, refd to. [para. 111].

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 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Sternig (1975), 31 C.R.N.S. 272 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Cuff (1989), 75 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 234 A.P.R. 1; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 65 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Naglik (1991), 46 O.A.C. 81; 65 C.C.C.(3d) 272 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Boss (1988), 30 O.A.C. 184; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 523 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. Bathurst, [1968] 1 All E.R. 1175 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Sparrow, [1973] 2 All E.R. 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 137].

R. v. Creighton (D.J.) and Crawford (C.) (1993), 62 O.A.C. 91 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 141].

R. v. Duke (1985), 62 A.R. 204; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 171].

R. v. Hertrich et al. (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 510 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 171].

R. v. Fanjoy, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 233; 62 N.R. 253; 11 O.A.C. 381; 48 C.R.(3d) 1; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 312; 21 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 172].

R. v. Bevan and Griffith (1993), 154 N.R. 245 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 173].

R. v. Giesecke (1993), 64 O.A.C. 75 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 175].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 4(6) [para. 123].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 56]; sect. 8 [para. 36]; sect. 11(c) [para. 139]; sect. 24(2) [para. 37].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 184, sect. 184(2) [para. 32]; sect. 184(2)(a) [para. 48]; sect. 185(1) [para. 51]; sect. 186(1) [para. 33]; sect. 186(1)(a) [para. 38]; sect. 189 [para. 34]; sect. 231(5) [para. 161]; sect. 686(1)(b)(iii) [para. 173].

Evidence Act (Can.) - see Canada Evi­dence Act.

Counsel:

H.S. Leonoff and E.J. Roitenberg, for Kyle Unger;

R.J. Wolson, B.L. Keyser and M.S. Makar, for Timothy Houlahan;

M.J. Watson and M.B. Britton, for the Crown.

These appeals were heard on April 13, 14 and 15, 1993, before Scott, C.J.M., Huband and Helper, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. On July 7, 1993, the following decision was delivered by the court.