Norman Stanford

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought a Corbett application to exclude his prior criminal record from evidence should he choose to testify.

The accused intended to argue self-defence and accident.

The court balanced the probative value of the record against the prejudicial effect of propensity reasoning.

The court excluded the accused's youth offences to prevent undue prejudice but permitted the Crown to cross-examine the accused on his adult convictions for assault, theft, drug trafficking, and dangerous driving, with a limiting instruction to the jury.

During jury selection, a sworn juror advised the court that he was an electrician foreman and his absence would prevent apprentices from working, causing hardship.

The court considered whether the juror could be discharged and replaced before the trial commenced.

Applying section 644(1.1) of the Criminal Code, the court found the juror's circumstances constituted 'other reasonable cause' and discharged him, allowing for a replacement to be selected from the panel.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal at the close of the Crown's case, arguing there was no evidence of the requisite intent for murder.

The defence contended that a 1.5-minute gap in the circumstantial evidence meant the jury would have to speculate on intent.

The court dismissed the motion, applying the common sense inference that a sane and sober person intends the natural consequences of their actions.

The court found that firing a shotgun at close range into the victim's lower torso provided a sufficient evidentiary foundation for a properly instructed jury to infer the intent required for murder.