R. v. Giesbrecht

R. v. Giesbrecht
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1994-06-14
Report
[1994] 2 SCR 482
Case number
23586
Judges
Lamer, Antonio; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank; Major, John C.
On appeal from
Manitoba
Subjects
Criminal law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 23586
Decision Content
R. v. Giesbrecht, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 482
Earl Hugh Giesbrecht Appellant
v.
Her Majesty the Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Giesbrecht
File No.: 23586.
1994: June 14.
Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for manitoba
Criminal law ‑‑ Evidence ‑‑ Accused's statements to psychiatrists ‑‑ Hearsay ‑‑ No error in trial judge's charge to jury with respect to weight to be given expert psychiatric evidence.
Cases Cited
Referred to: R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; R. v. Smith, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal (1993), 20 C.R. (4th) 73, 85 Man. R. (2d) 69, 41 W.A.C. 69, dismissing the accused's appeal from his conviction on a charge of murder. Appeal dismissed.
Heather Leonoff, for the appellant.
Richard A. Saull, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
Sopinka J. ‑‑ The only ground in this appeal is based on alleged error in the charge to the jury with respect to the weight to be given expert psychiatric evidence.
In giving their evidence, the psychiatrists called by the defence did not particularize the statements from the accused, on which they relied in order to arrive at their opinions. Such statements as were specifically referred to were properly characterized as hearsay in that they consisted of statements by the accused as to his past state of mind at the time of the offence. These were not statements from which the experts inferred the accused's state of mind. Moreover, we are not satisfied that the statements meet the criteria of R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531, and R. v. Smith, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915.
In the circumstances, the trial judge did not err in characterizing these statements as hearsay and not to be relied on for the truth of the facts, nor in stating that this should be considered in determining the weight to be given to the evidence of the experts.
The appeal is dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Wolch, Pinx, Tapper, Scurfield, Winnipeg.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Department of Justice, Winnipeg.