Marie-Hélène Claire Sylvie Giroux

The appellant was convicted by jury of second degree murder and assault with a weapon following charges of first degree murder and assault with a weapon.

The appellant appealed his second degree murder conviction on the ground that the trial judge failed to mention the mens rea required for manslaughter in jury instructions and in answering the jury's questions about that offence.

The majority of the Court of Appeal found the trial judge's instructions and answer were sufficient, as the accused had conceded guilt for manslaughter.

The dissenting judge at the Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by inadequately answering the jury's questions about manslaughter, creating a reasonable possibility that jurors misunderstood the mens rea required for second degree murder.

A majority of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal, with one justice dissenting.

The Crown appealed as of right from a Quebec Court of Appeal decision that set aside the accused's convictions for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, and ordered a new trial.

The trial judge had rejected the accused's self-defence claim under s. 34 of the Criminal Code, finding that he acted out of vengeance rather than to defend himself.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal majority erred by reassessing the evidence without identifying a palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's analysis, and failed to defer to the trial judge's privileged position in assessing credibility.

The convictions were restored.

The Crown appealed acquittals entered on criminal organization counts and the quashing of a possession-for-trafficking conviction.

The Court held the possession verdict was unreasonable because the evidentiary nexus between the seized cocaine and the accused’s conspiracy was not proven.

It further held that the accused was not a member of the trafficking group for purposes of membership-based liability under the organized-crime provisions.

However, the Court found the trafficking offence was committed in association with the organization because the accused knowingly supplied and supported its operations.

The appeal was therefore allowed only to restore the conviction on the association-based count.