R. v. Pittman, 1996 CanLII 179 (SCC), [1996] 3 SCR 410
Edward Michael Pittman Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Pittman
1996: October 4.
Present: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for newfoundland
Criminal law ‑‑ Charge to jury ‑‑ Defences ‑‑ Intoxication ‑‑ Trial judge’s instructions as to defence of intoxication not in error or misleading when taken as a whole ‑‑ Majority of Court of Appeal correct in dismissing issues raised as to unanimity and trial judge’s remarks said to be inflammatory.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal (1995), 1995 9865 (NL CA), 136 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 209, 423 A.P.R. 209, dismissing the accused’s appeal from his conviction of second degree murder. Appeal dismissed.
Jerome P. Kennedy, for the appellant.
Colin J. Flynn, Q.C., for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1Gonthier J. ‑‑ This appeal comes to us as of right. We are all of the view that the trial judge’s instructions as to the defence of intoxication taken as a whole, including the second and the last recharge, were not in error nor misleading, though it was unnecessary to cover intoxication in general intent offences. We agree with the majority of the Court of Appeal in dismissing the issues raised as to unanimity and the judge’s remarks said to be inflammatory, and agree with its comments on the latter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: Jerome P. Kennedy, St. John’s.
Solicitor for the respondent: Colin J. Flynn, St. John’s.