2 total
Appeal dismissed; trial judge's response to jury questions regarding the difference between murder and manslaughter was correct.
The appellant was charged with second degree murder.
At trial, he admitted guilt to manslaughter but argued he lacked the mental state for murder.
During deliberations, the jury asked the trial judge to explain the difference between manslaughter and second degree murder and to provide a specific definition of manslaughter.
The trial judge explained the difference lay in the mental state but declined to provide examples or a specific definition of manslaughter.
The jury convicted the appellant of second degree murder.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge responded correctly to the jury's questions and there was no reasonable possibility the jury misunderstood what had to be proved for a conviction.
Constitutional exemptions are not an available remedy for mandatory minimum sentences that violate the Charter.
The appellant, an RCMP officer, shot and killed a detainee in a cell and was convicted of manslaughter.
The trial judge found the mandatory minimum four-year sentence under s. 236(a) of the Criminal Code constituted cruel and unusual punishment and granted a constitutional exemption, imposing a conditional sentence.
The Court of Appeal overturned this decision.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the four-year sentence was not grossly disproportionate on the facts.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that constitutional exemptions are not an available remedy for mandatory minimum sentences that violate s. 12 of the Charter; such laws must be struck down under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
