R. v. Wilson (G.R.), (1999) 138 Man.R.(2d) 139 (CA)

• Judge: Scott, C.J.M., Huband and Philp, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: April 06, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1999), 138 Man.R.(2d) 139 (CA)

R. v. Wilson (G.R.) (1999), 138 Man.R.(2d) 139 (CA);

    202 W.A.C. 139

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.008

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent/appellant) v. Gerald Robert Wilson (accused/appellant/respondent)

(AR98-30-03758; AR98-30-03767)

Indexed As: R. v. Wilson (G.R.)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

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

May 25, 1999.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of manslaugh­ter and was sentenced to seven years' incar­ceration. The accused appealed the convic­tion. The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the conviction appeal and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 1300

Offences against person and reputation - Murder - Defences - Accident - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4382 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4357

Procedure - Charge or directions to jury - Directions regarding defences - Defence of accident - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4382 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4382

Procedure - Charge or directions to jury - Misdirection - What constitutes - The accused appealed his conviction for man­slaughter - The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial - The trial judge gave the jury erroneous instructions with respect to the defence of accident and the offence of manslaughter in the jury charge and recharge - A correct second recharge to the jury was not suffi­cient to undo the confusing and contradic­tory main charge and first recharge - See paragraphs 13 to 29.

Criminal Law - Topic 5204.3

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility - Evidence of disposition or propensity of accused - [See all Criminal Law - Topic 5449 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5449

Evidence and witnesses - Testimony re­specting the accused - Character of accused - General - The accused was convicted of manslaughter - The victim, his common law wife, died from a shotgun discharge - Relatives of the victim testified that the accused had made comments about blow­ing his former girlfriend's head off and that the accused had brandished the shot­gun about in a threatening manner - On appeal, the Crown argued that the evidence was admissible because the accused put his own character in issue when he gave a statement to police wherein he made adverse comments about the victim - The Manitoba Court of Appeal rejected the Crown's argument - An accused could not put his character in issue through state­ments made in an out of court statement to police - See paragraphs 39 to 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 5449

Evidence and witnesses - Testimony re­specting the accused - Character of accused - General - The accused was convicted of manslaughter - The victim, his common law wife, died from a shotgun discharge - Relatives of the victim testified that the accused had made comments about blow­ing his former girlfriend's head off and that the accused had brandished the shot­gun about in a threatening manner - On appeal, the Crown argued that the disposi­tion for violence of the deceased was put in issue by the accused in a statement to police and it was therefore open to the Crown to lead evidence as to the accused's propensity for violence - The Manitoba Court of Appeal rejected the Crown's argument - The accused did not put his character in issue by making statements as to the propensity for violence of the victim - See paragraphs 44 to 52.

Criminal Law - Topic 5449

Evidence and witnesses - Testimony re­specting the accused - Character of accused - General - The accused was convicted of manslaughter - The victim, his common law wife, died from a shotgun discharge - Relatives of the victim testified that the accused had made comments about blow­ing his former girlfriend's head off and that the accused had brandished the shot­gun about in a threatening manner - On appeal, the Crown argued that character evidence about the accused was admissible under the emerging disreputable conduct exception to the character evidence rule - The Crown submitted that evidence of previous criminal acts, bad character or general discreditable conduct could be admitted in evidence if it was both relevant to an issue before the court and its probative value exceeded its prejudicial effect - The Manitoba Court of Appeal rejected the argument holding that there was no such emerging disreputable conduct exception - Further, the prejudicial effect of the evidence in this case far outweighed its probative value - See paragraphs 56 to 58.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Naglik, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 122; 157 N.R. 161; 65 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Thatcher, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 652; 75 N.R. 198; 57 Sask.R. 113, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Hunter, [1987] O.J. No. 1096 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Danks, [1994] O.J. No. 143 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Guillemette, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 356; 66 N.R. 19, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Minhas (1986), 16 O.A.C. 42; 29 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Knuff (1980), 19 A.R. 168; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 523 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. S.G.G., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 716; 214 N.R. 161; 94 B.C.A.C. 81; 152 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. McNamara (No. 1) (1981), 56 C.C.C.(2d) 193 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Scopelliti (1981), 63 C.C.C.(2d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Conway (1985), 17 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Yaeck, [1989] O.J. No. 3002 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Parsons (G.) (1993), 65 O.A.C. 61; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 226 (C.A.), dist. [para. 43].

R. v. Robertshaw, [1996] O.J. No. 1544 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Ferguson, [1996] O.J. No. 3847 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Bourguignon (C.) (1997), 102 O.A.C. 196; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 43 (C.A.), dist. [para. 43].

R. v. McMillan, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 824; 15 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Mullins-Johnson (W.) (1996), 96 O.A.C. 212 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Lewin, [1991] O.J. No. 2416 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Baltrusaitis (V.) (1996), 3 O.T.C. 181 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Watson (K.S.) (1996), 92 O.A.C. 131; 108 C.C.C.(3d) 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Sims (1994), 87 C.C.C.(3d) 402 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Arcangioli (G.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 129; 162 N.R. 280; 69 O.A.C. 26, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. F.F.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 697; 148 N.R. 161; 120 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 322 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Lepage (J.P.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 654; 178 N.R. 81; 79 O.A.C. 191, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Tierney (1982), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Sutherland (D.L.) (1993), 113 Sask.R. 193; 52 W.A.C. 193; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 484 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Makin v. New South Wales (Attorney General), [1894] A.C. 57 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Bond, [1906] 2 K.B. 389 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Brunet v. R. (1918), 57 S.C.R. 83, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Drysdale, [1969] 2 C.C.C. 141 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Board­man, [1975] A.C. 421 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Sweitzer, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 949; 42 N.R. 550; 37 A.R. 294, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Robertson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 918; 75 N.R. 6; 20 O.A.C. 200, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. C.R.B., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 717; 107 N.R. 241; 109 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. M.H.C., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 763; 123 N.R. 63, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. G.R. (1993), 61 O.A.C. 198; 19 C.R.(4th) 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 57

R. v. L.W.G. (1996), 187 A.R. 21; 127 W.A.C. 21; 49 C.R.(4th) 178 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. R.K.N. (1997), 97 O.A.C. 299; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 40 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. L.B.; R. v. M.A.G. (1997), 102 O.A.C. 104; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. D.A.H. (1997), 161 N.S.R.(2d) 204; 477 A.P.R. 204; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 238 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed. 1940), vol. 1, generally [paras. 42, 43].

Counsel:

T.J.P. Killeen, for the appellant/respondent;

R.H. Morrison, for the respon­dent/appellant.

These appeals were heard on April 6, 1999, by Scott, C.J.M., Huband and Philp, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered by Scott, C.J.M., on May 25, 1999.