R. v. Escobar-Benavidez

R. v. Escobar-Benavidez
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2005-11-18
Neutral citation
2005 SCC 68
Report
[2005] 3 SCR 386
Case number
30917
Judges
McLachlin, Beverley; Bastarache, Michel; LeBel, Louis; Deschamps, Marie; Fish, Morris J.; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Charron, Louise
On appeal from
British Columbia
Subjects
Criminal law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 30917
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: R. v. Escobar‑Benavidez, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 386, 2005 SCC 68
Date: 20051118
Docket: 30917
Between:
Elidio Donato Escobar‑Benavidez
Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
Reasons for judgment:
(paras. 1 to 3)
McLachlin C.J. (Bastarache, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ. concurring)
______________________________
R. v. Escobar‑Benavidez, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 386, 2005 SCC 68
Elidio Donato Escobar‑Benavidez Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Escobar‑Benavidez
Neutral citation: 2005 SCC 68.
File No.: 30917.
2005: November 18.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia
Criminal law — Charge to jury — Criminal record of accused — Post‑offence conduct.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, s. 686(1) (b)(iii).
APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Southin, Prowse and Oppal JJ.A.) (2005), 211 B.C.A.C. 260, 349 W.A.C. 260, 196 C.C.C. (3d) 459, [2005] B.C.J. No. 752 (QL), 2005 BCCA 211, upholding the accused’s conviction for second degree murder. Appeal dismissed.
Timothy J. Russell, for the appellant.
Fred Tischler, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1 The Chief Justice — We would all dismiss the appeal. The recharge on the criminal record, read in context, could not have misled the jury. Moreover, we conclude that the trial judge did not err in failing to instruct the jury on post‑offence conduct which, we note, was not requested.
2 Absent error, there is no need to consider the issue of the application of s. 686(1) (b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46 .
3 The appeal is dismissed and the verdict of the jury is confirmed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: McCullough Parsons Blazina, Victoria.
Solicitor for the respondent: Ministry of Attorney General, Vancouver.