The appellant fatally shot a trespasser who refused to leave his home.
At trial for second degree murder, the appellant claimed the shooting was accidental and that he intended to use his shotgun solely to intimidate the trespasser in defence of his property.
The trial judge instructed the jury that the underlying offence of careless use of a firearm had been made out and refused to instruct the jury on the defence of property.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge erred by encroaching on the exclusive domain of the jury to decide whether an offence has been proven on the facts, and by failing to leave the defence of property to the jury.
The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.
