R. v. Yebes, (1987) 78 N.R. 351 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 17, 1987
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1987), 78 N.R. 351 (SCC);[1987] 2 SCR 168;1987 CanLII 17 (SCC);43 DLR (4th) 424;[1987] 6 WWR 97;17 BCLR (2d) 1;36 CCC (3d) 417;59 CR (3d) 108;78 NR 351;JE 87-995;[1987] SCJ No 51 (QL);[1987] ACS no 51

R. v. Yebes (1987), 78 N.R. 351 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Thomas Yebes v. Her Majesty The Queen

(19236)

Indexed As: R. v. Yebes

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ.

September 17, 1987.

Summary:

The accused was convicted by a judge and jury of the second degree murder of his two adopted children. The accused appealed from conviction on the ground that the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence pursuant to s. 613(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Hutcheson, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5020

Appeals - Indictable offences - Setting aside verdicts - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the proper test for the application of s. 613(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code was whether the verdict was one that a properly instructed jury acting judicially could reasonably have rendered - While the court of appeal must not merely substitute its view for that of the jury, in order to apply the test the court must re-examine and to some extent reweigh and consider the effect of the evidence - This process will be the same whether the case is based on circumstantial or direct evidence - See paragraphs 16 to 27.

Criminal Law - Topic 5318

Evidence - Witnesses - Inferences - From opportunity - The Supreme Court of Canada held that where it is shown that a crime has been committed and the incriminating evidence against the accused is primarily evidence of opportunity, the guilt of the accused is not the only rational inference which can be drawn unless the accused had exclusive opportunity - In a case, however, where evidence of opportunity is accompanied by other inculpatory evidence, something less than exclusive opportunity may suffice - See paragraph 26.

Criminal Law - Topic 5409

Evidence - Witnesses - Duty of Crown to call witnesses - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown has a discretion as to which witnesses it will call in presenting its case to the court - This discretion will not be interfered with unless the Crown has exercised it for some oblique or improper reason - See paragraph 28.

Criminal Law - Topic 9023

Appeals to Supreme Court of Canada - Appeals without leave - Question of law - What constitutes - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 613(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code raised a question of law which could be reviewed by the Supreme Court of Canada under s. 618 of the Code - See paragraph 20.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Corbett, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 275; 1 N.R. 258, folld. [para. 16].

Lemay v. The King, [1952] 1 S.C.R. 232, folld. [para. 17].

R. v. Mahoney, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 834; 41 N.R. 582, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Ferianz (1962), 37 C.R. 37 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 26].

R. v. MacFarlane (1981), 61 C.C.C.(2d) 458 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Monteleone (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 489 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Stevens (1984), 2 O.A.C. 239; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 518, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Imric, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 622; 15 N.R. 227, refd to. [para. 26].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 613(1)(a)(i) [paras. 16-21, 25-26]; sect. 618 [para. 20]; sect. 623(1) [para. 26].

Counsel:

Thomas R. Braidwood, Q.C., for the appellant;

John E. Hall, Q.C., for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Braidwood, Nuttall, MacKenzie, Brewer, Greyell & Company, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;

DuMoulin Black, Vancouver, B.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Dickson, C.J.C., Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada on December 15 and 16, 1986. The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered by McIntyre, J., on September 17, 1987.

Chouinard, J., did not take part in the judgment.