3 total
Rejected manslaughter plea does not bar post‑offence conduct evidence.
Pre‑trial evidentiary rulings in a first‑degree murder prosecution concerning the admissibility of the accused’s statements and post‑offence conduct.
The accused attempted to plead guilty to manslaughter, but the Crown rejected the plea and pursued first‑degree murder based on an alleged killing during or in connection with sexual assault.
The court held that a rejected guilty plea and unaccepted defence admissions do not remove issues from the jury unless the Crown agrees to a formal admission under s. 655 of the Criminal Code.
Evidence of post‑offence conduct remained relevant to actus reus and identification issues but could not be used to determine the level of intent between manslaughter and murder.
The accused’s statement to police was admitted, subject to limited redactions and jury instructions, while a statement to a friend about “going to jail for life” was excluded for minimal probative value and high prejudicial effect.
The offender was sentenced to three years imprisonment for repeatedly giving contradictory evidence during a child homicide trial.
The defendant pleaded guilty to eight counts of giving contradictory evidence in relation to his testimony at various court proceedings in a second-degree murder case involving the death of a two-and-a-half-year-old child.
The defendant's testimony evolved significantly across multiple hearings, from denying knowledge of the child's injuries to eventually admitting responsibility.
The court imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment, emphasizing the serious nature of misleading evidence in homicide proceedings and the need for general deterrence and denunciation.
Long-term offender designation and substantial concurrent penitentiary terms were imposed.
Following jury convictions for manslaughter, robbery, unlawful confinement, and use of an imitation firearm arising from a fatal robbery, the court determined a dangerous offender application under the pre-July 2, 2008 regime.
The court found the statutory prerequisites for both dangerous offender and long-term offender status were met but exercised discretion to designate the offender a long-term offender.
Emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, separation, and proportionality in light of extreme aggravating factors and no mitigating factors, the court imposed concurrent custodial terms resulting in a ten-year net sentence after enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, plus a ten-year long-term supervision order.
