3 total
Acquittal set aside and new trial ordered due to trial judge's failure to correct improper defence closing.
The accused was acquitted of murder following a stabbing at a nightclub.
At trial, evidence was admitted that the deceased had 39 ecstasy pills sewn into his underwear, on the condition that the defence would not use it to suggest the deceased had a violent disposition.
However, in his closing address, defence counsel rhetorically asked the jury to link the drugs to violence, implying the deceased was the aggressor.
The trial judge refused the Crown's request for a corrective instruction.
The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge erred in failing to correct the impermissible propensity reasoning invited by defence counsel.
Appeal from second degree murder conviction and 15-year parole ineligibility period dismissed.
The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder and his sentence of life imprisonment with a 15-year period of parole ineligibility.
He argued the trial judge erred by excluding evidence of the deceased's propensity for violence, misdirecting the jury on after-the-fact conduct regarding intent, and misdirecting the jury on self-defence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly considered the appellant's prior record, the senseless nature of the killing, and the jury's recommendation.
Crown appeal dismissed; marijuana possession charge invalid as no constitutional medical exemption existed when laid.
The respondent was charged with possession of marijuana in April 2002.
He successfully moved to dismiss the charges on the basis that the prohibition in section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was of no force or effect at the time, following the Court of Appeal's earlier decision in R. v. Parker.
The Crown appealed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that because the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations did not create a constitutionally valid medical exemption (as determined in the companion case Hitzig v. R.), the criminal prohibition against possession of marijuana remained of no force and effect when the respondent was charged.