Ursula Botz

The appellants, two brothers, were convicted of second degree murder following a joint trial.

The evidence against them included out-of-court statements made to an accomplice.

The appellants appealed their convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in his Vetrovec warning by allowing the jury to use statements admissible against only one accused to bolster the accomplice's credibility against the other.

They also argued the trial judge erred by giving a Duncan instruction, suggesting inculpatory statements carry more weight than exculpatory ones.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, finding the Vetrovec warning was proper and contained adequate cautions.

While the Court held that the Duncan instruction should not be adopted by Canadian trial courts, it concluded the instruction did not mislead the jury in the context of the charge as a whole.

The accused voluntarily went to a police station and asked that officers be sent to a ranch where he lived, but refused to answer questions about why they were needed.

Police discovered three murder victims at the ranch.

At trial, the judge instructed the jury that the accused's silence was post-offence conduct from which an inference of guilt could be drawn.

The accused was convicted, but the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the right to silence exists even before detention or arrest, and that silence cannot be used as post-offence conduct to infer guilt.

The appellant was convicted at trial of six counts of sex-related offences involving two young children.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial on counts involving one complainant but upheld the others.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing the trial judge erred by considering evidence from other counts when assessing his credibility.

The Supreme Court held that while verdicts must be based on admissible evidence for each count, a trial judge may consider the totality of a witness's evidence when assessing credibility.

However, because the credibility findings were deeply intertwined and a new trial had already been ordered for some counts, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the remaining counts as well.