R. v. Michaud

R. v. Michaud
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1996-06-20
Report
[1996] 2 SCR 458
Case number
24798
Judges
L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank; Major, John C.
On appeal from
New Brunswick
Subjects
Criminal law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 24798
Decision Content
R. v. Michaud, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 458
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant
v.
Félix Michaud Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Michaud
File No.: 24798.
1996: June 20.
Present: L’Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for new brunswick
Criminal law -- Charge to jury -- Crown’s address to jury exceeding limits laid down by this Court -- Whether trial judge inadequately directed jury with respect to these improprieties -- Whether charge defective with respect to corroborative evidence or alibi evidence -- Whether application should be considered to adduce fresh evidence.
Cases Cited
Referred to: Boucher v. The Queen, [1955] S.C.R. 16.
APPEAL from a judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal (1995), 161 N.B.R. (2d) 215, 414 A.P.R. 215, 98 C.C.C. (3d) 121, allowing an appeal from conviction by Daigle J. sitting with jury and ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed.
Graham J. Sleeth, Q.C., for the appellant.
Kim Jensen, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1 Sopinka J. -- In this appeal a new trial was ordered by the Court of Appeal (1995), 161 N.B.R. (2d) 215, 414 A.P.R. 215, 98 C.C.C. (3d) 121, on a number of grounds based on errors in the charge to the jury. We have concluded that the address to the jury by Crown counsel exceeded the limits laid down by this Court in Boucher v. The Queen, [1955] S.C.R. 16.
2 In the circumstances the trial judge ought to have specifically directed the jury with respect to these improprieties. The charge by the trial judge was inadequate in this respect.
3 With respect to the other grounds, counsel for the respondent properly conceded that the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge’s charge was defective in treating as corroborative, evidence that did not implicate the accused. Such evidence need not, although it may, implicate the accused. We find no error in the charge in respect of this ground nor in the charge relating to the alibi evidence.
4 The appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider the application to adduce fresh evidence.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: The Attorney General for New Brunswick, Fredericton.
Solicitors for the respondent: MacElwain & Renouf, Florenceville.