Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2019-05-13 Docket: C61244 Judges: MacPherson, Juriansz and Rouleau JJ.A.
Between
Her Majesty the Queen Respondent
and
Mladen Praljak Appellant
Counsel
Mladen Praljak, in person
Michael Dineen and Svibor Gamulin, amicus curiae
John Patton, for the respondent
Heard and Released Orally
May 8, 2019
Appeal Information
On appeal from the conviction entered on October 10, 2012 and the sentence imposed on January 14, 2013 by Justice Michael R. Dambrot of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury.
Reasons for Decision
[1] The Conviction and Facts
The appellant was convicted of the second degree murder of his wife. The wife's mother, who lived with the couple, testified that she heard her daughter scream, ran to see what was happening and found her lying on the floor with three stab wounds to her torso. The appellant was holding a knife by the kitchen sink. After the mother left to phone 911, the appellant cut his wrists causing life-threatening injuries.
[2] Trial Theory and Defence
At trial, the theory of the Crown was that the appellant attempted to carry out a planned murder/suicide. The defence advanced at trial, at which the appellant did not testify or call evidence, was that an unknown assailant had gained access to the house and stabbed the victim before the appellant discovered her.
[3] Sentence
The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with parole ineligibility of 15 years. He appeals his conviction and sentence.
[4] Grounds of Appeal
Amicus, on behalf of the appellant, submits that the trial judge failed to properly answer a question from the jury about the mental state required for murder, did not provide adequate instruction about what to make of the appellant's apparent suicide attempt, and that his instructions as a whole were unbalanced.
[5] Standard for Jury Instructions
We would not give effect to these submissions. Jury instructions must be understood as a whole in the context of the evidence at trial and the positions the parties took at trial.
[6] Mental State Instructions
In this light, we are not persuaded the trial judge made any reversible error in responding to the jury's question. The trial judge engaged counsel in fashioning his response and defence counsel agreed with the answer the trial judge proposed to give. The answer that was given was correct in the context of the evidence at trial. We are satisfied that the standard stated in paragraph 65 of R v. Walle, 2012 SCC 41, was met. At the end of the day, the jury was properly instructed about the mental state required for murder and was made to understand in clear terms that, in assessing the specific intent for murder, it should consider the whole of the evidence that could realistically bear on the accused's mental state at the time of the alleged offence. The trial judge alerted the jury to the pertinent evidence and the amount of detail he provided was a matter for his discretion.
[7] Post-Offence Conduct and Suicide Attempt
The trial judge's instructions about the appellant's post offence conduct and his suicide attempt were adequate considered in the context of this trial and the positions of the parties. The trial judge reviewed his proposed instructions with counsel before delivering them. Defence counsel made no objection at trial. Any additional instruction about the suicide would also have had to address the inferences that supported the Crown's theory that this was a planned murder/suicide.
[8] Balance of Instructions
Finally, we are not persuaded the instructions were unbalanced. As the trial judge noted, an accurate review of the evidence at trial would necessarily reflect the fact that the Crown had called all the evidence at trial. The trial judge did highlight the defence's arguments, included that relating to the trail of blood leading out the door, which amicus highlighted. The trial judge was entitled to ensure the jury understood all the evidence relating to that and all other issues.
[9] Appellant's Submissions on Appeal
The appellant advanced separate submissions on this appeal. Some were in the nature of giving evidence that he could have given at trial. The main thrust of his argument, however, was to question the integrity of the evidence and the exhibits introduced at trial, which he claims were tampered with. The materials filed in the Crown's supplementary appeal book make apparent that the appellant's claims are entirely baseless.
[10] Conviction Appeal Dismissed
The appeal from conviction is dismissed.
[11] Sentence Appeal
The appellant did not address the sentence appeal. The factum filed indicates the single issue is the period of parole ineligibility. The trial judge made no reversible error in fixing the appellant's parole ineligibility at 15 years in the circumstances of this case. Fifteen years of parole ineligibility falls within the range for domestic homicide cases.
[12] Sentence Appeal Dismissed
Leave to appeal sentence is granted, but the appeal from sentence is dismissed.
J.C. MacPherson J.A.
R.G. Juriansz J.A.
Paul Rouleau J.A.
