Criminal
Reasonable Doubt and Jury Instructions
Lifchus, W(D), and the burden of proof.
Two SCC decisions shape the way Canadian jurors are told to assess evidence. R v Lifchus (1997) sets the model jury charge on reasonable doubt — closer to absolute certainty than to a balance of probabilities, based on reason and common sense, logically connected to the evidence or its absence.
R v W(D) (1991) tells the jury how to handle competing testimony where the accused testifies: believe the accused → acquit; not believe but left in doubt by the accused's evidence → acquit; not in doubt by the accused's evidence but consider all the evidence and convict only if satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key principles
- Reasonable doubt is closer to certainty than balance of probabilitiesLifchus model charge.
- W(D) three-step instructionPrevents collapsing burden into a credibility contest.
- Battered-woman contextSelf-defence imminence read with regard to the accused's history.