Carol A. Snell

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder following the death of his severely disabled daughter by carbon monoxide poisoning.

He appealed on the basis that his Charter rights under ss. 9, 10(a), and 10(b) were violated during his arrest and interrogation, arguing he was arbitrarily detained, not properly informed of his jeopardy, and not provided a toll-free number for duty counsel.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Charter arguments, finding a lawful de facto arrest, adequate understanding of jeopardy, and sufficient information regarding local duty counsel.

However, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial due to fresh evidence revealing that Crown counsel and the RCMP had improperly administered a questionnaire to prospective jurors, constituting a flagrant abuse of process.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing his plea of autrefois acquit.

The Crown had withdrawn two informations after the appellant pleaded not guilty but before any evidence was adduced, and immediately issued a new consolidated information.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the withdrawal was purely technical, did not represent a decision on legal or factual grounds, and occurred before any evidence was adduced, thus not constituting an acquittal.

The appellant was tried by judge and jury for attempted murder.

The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and the trial judge discharged the jury and the accused.

Subsequently, the jury foreman indicated they might have found the accused guilty of a lesser included offence.

The trial judge ruled he was functus officio and could not reconvene the jury.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that once a jury is discharged in a criminal case, the court is functus officio and the jury cannot be reconvened to reconsider its verdict.