Kathleen M. Bradley

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after shooting a victim during a physical altercation and immediately fleeing the scene.

At trial, the appellant conceded to manslaughter but claimed the shooting was accidental, lacking the intent for murder.

The Crown argued the appellant's immediate flight without hesitation indicated murderous intent.

The trial judge instructed the jury to be careful with the post-offence conduct evidence.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge should have given a 'no probative value' instruction regarding his flight.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the evidence of lack of hesitation was relevant to intent and the jury charge was adequate.

The Court further held that even if there was an error, it was harmless and saved by the curative proviso.

The appellants were convicted of first degree murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of two unsavoury witnesses.

The trial judge gave a Vetrovec warning, instructing the jury to look for confirmation of their testimony.

The appellants appealed, arguing the warning failed to instruct the jury that confirmatory evidence must be independent and material.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that while the warning was not a model to follow, the charge as a whole adequately conveyed the need for special scrutiny and the danger of convicting on unconfirmed evidence.

The Court also applied the curative proviso to an error in the trial judge's instructions on drawing inferences from proven facts.