3 total
The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial for two brothers convicted of murder because the trial judge improperly conflated their liability in the jury instructions.
Two brothers were convicted of second degree murder in the shooting death of a gang member.
The Crown's theory was that the brothers acted pursuant to a joint venture to hunt down and kill the victim.
One brother testified he was the shooter and raised defences of self-defence and provocation; the other testified he had no involvement in the killing.
The trial judge's jury instructions improperly conflated the two accused into a single entity by repeatedly using the phrase "John and/or Mato" when describing elements of the offence and defences, failing to distinguish between liability as a perpetrator and liability as an aider or abettor, and assigning the shooter's defences to the non-shooter.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the cumulative errors created a significant risk that the jury would approach the liability of the brothers jointly rather than separately.
The court dismissed the appeal, finding the jury instructions adequately addressed the Crown's remarks.
The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault of his then 17-year-old niece, arguing that the trial judge erred by failing to provide a proper curative instruction to the jury in response to Crown counsel's closing remarks.
Crown counsel had commented that the complainant was not asked about abrasions to her genitals or the presence of male DNA on her body.
The appellant argued this violated the rule prohibiting questions about other sexual activity.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's instructions adequately addressed the issue by explaining the legal prohibition on such questions and reiterating the Crown's burden of proof.
The court also dismissed the appellant's request for leave to appeal his sentence, which was imposed pursuant to a joint submission.
Conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal allowed and reduced to 8 years consecutive.
The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no prejudice in the trial judge's refusal to allow further cross-examination of the 88-year-old victim regarding her out-of-court statement.
However, the sentence appeal was allowed.
The Court found the trial judge erred in considering an unproven attempt to obstruct justice and that the total sentence was excessive.
The sentence was reduced to 8 years, to be served consecutively to the sentence the appellant was already serving.
