R. v. Graveline (R.) (2006), 347 N.R. 268 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2006] N.R. TBEd. AP.041
Rita Graveline (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)
(31020; 2006 SCC 16; 2006 CSC 16)
Indexed As: R. v. Graveline (R.)
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
April 27, 2006.
Summary:
The accused was charged with the second degree murder of her husband. The only defence raised by the accused was non-mental disorder automatism. The trial judge, on his own initiative, opened for the jury’s consideration the possibility of an acquittal based on self-defence. The accused was acquitted. The Crown appealed.
The Quebec Court of Appeal, Rousseau- Houle, J.A., dissenting, set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, Lebel, J., dissenting, allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal.
Criminal Law – Topic 4802
Appeals – Indictable offences – General principles – Burden on Crown appellant respecting errors by trial judge – The only defence raised by an accused at a murder trial was non-mental disorder automatism -The trial judge, on his own initiative, opened for the jury’s consideration the possibility of an acquittal based on self- defence – The accused was acquitted – The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed a Crown appeal and ordered a new trial – The Supreme Court of Canada restored the acquittal – It had been long established that a Crown appeal could not succeed on an abstract or purely hypothetical possibility that the accused would have been convicted but for the error of law – Something more had to be shown – To obtain a new trial, the Crown had to establish that the trial judge’s error(s) might reasonably be thought, in the concrete reality of the case, to have had a material bearing on the acquittal – The Crown was not required to establish that the verdict would necessarily have been different – Generally, alleged errors would go to the defence(s) upon which the accused had relied at trial – For that reason, the errors’ impact on the verdict, would not be a mere matter of speculation – However, here the Crown asserted that the jury might have acquitted based on a ground not relied on by the accused (self-defence), there was no reasonable basis for that defence and the trial judge misdirected the jury on the defence – In effect, the Crown sought a finding that the jury acquitted on what the Crown characterized as an unreasonable basis (self-defence) rather than on what it recognized as a reasonable basis (automatism) – The Crown had not discharged its “very heavy” burden – See paragraphs 1 to 20.
Criminal Law – Topic 4951
Appeals – Indictable offences – New trials -Grounds – Misdirection by trial judge – Appeal by Crown from acquittal – [See
Criminal Law – Topic 4802
].
Criminal Law – Topic 4975
Appeals – Indictable offences – Powers of Court of Appeal – Appeal from an acquittal – [See
Criminal Law – Topic 4802
].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Evans (B.J.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 629; 153 N.R. 212; 28 B.C.A.C. 81; 47 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 13].
Cullen v. R., [1949] S.C.R. 658, refd to. [para. 15].
R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 15, 29].
R. v. Sutton (K.M.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 595; 262 N.R. 384; 230 N.B.R.(2d) 205; 593 A.P.R. 205; 2000 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. Livermore (C.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 123; 189 N.R. 126; 87 O.A.C. 81; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 212, refd to. [para. 28].
White v. R., [1947] S.C.R. 268, refd to. [para. 29].
R. v. Vézeau, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 277; 8 N.R. 235, refd to. [para. 29].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 676(1)(a) [para. 13].
Counsel:
Isabelle Doray, for the appellant;
Denis Pilon and Martin Côté, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Soulière Lapointe Doray Michaud Lamoureux, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;
Deputy Attorney General of Quebec, Quebec, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on March 14, 2006, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on April 27, 2006, and the following opinions were filed:
Fish, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, Abella and Charron, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 20;
Lebel, J., dissenting – see paragraphs 21 to 31.
