Criminal jury

R. v. Khela, 2009 SCC 4
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Criminal / Jury charge)
The accused were convicted of first degree murder.  They appealed, arguing that the trial judge had failed to provide a sufficient warning to the jury about using unsavoury witness testimony.  The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a so-called Vetrovec caution must: 1) draw the jury's attention to the evidence requiring special scrutiny; 2) explain why this evidence requires special scrutiny; 3) caution the jury that it is dangerous to convict on unconfirmed evidence of this sort, though the jury may do so if satisfied that the evidence is true; and 4) that in determining whether the evidence is true, the jury should look for evidence from another source which indicates that the unsavoury witness was telling the truth.  The Court also indicated that there is no single formula for a proper caution.
Majority/Concurring: 6/1

R. v. Smith, 2009 SCC 5
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Criminal / Jury charge)
The accused was convicted of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder.  The Crown's case depended on two alleged accomplices who had been granted immunity and witness protection in exchange for their testimony.  The trial judge warned the jury to be cautious in accepting their testimony and unsafe to rely on that evidence alone, but told the jury it could rely on the testimony if it was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it was true.  The Court upheld the convictions, holding that a so-called Vetrovec warning must clearly warn the jury of the danger of relying on unsavoury witness testimony without additional evidence.  The warning must also identify what type of additional evidence can be used to support unsavoury witness testimony.
Majority/Concurring: 6/1

R. v. Illes, 2008 SCC 57
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Criminal law / Jury charge)
The accused was convicted at trial of first degree murder.  He appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury to give more weight to inculpatory statements made by the accused, and less weight to exculpatory statements.  The accused also appealed on the ground that the Crown had failed to disclose evidence of a confidential informer, though that evidence was not used at trial.  The Court granted the appeal, finding that either ground was sufficient to justify a new trial.
Majority/Dissent: 4/3

R. v. Rojas, 2008 SCC 56
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Criminal law / Jury charge)
Two brothers were convicted by a jury of second degree murder.  On appeal, they argued that the trial judge erred 1) in allowing the jury to use out-of-court statements admissible against one accused to bolster the credibility of an unsavoury witness with respect to the other accused, and 2) in instructing the jury that exculpatory statements did not carry the same weight as inculpatory statements.  The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that 1) the trial judge had given numerous cautions to try each individual separately and not use statements by one against the other, and that 2) the judge did not misdirect the jury.  The Court cautioned against instructing juries to give more weight to inculpatory statements than to exculpatory statements.
Majority/Dissent: 7/0

R. v. J.H.S., 2008 SCC 30
Click here to link to the full judgment. 
(Criminal law / Jury charge / Reasonable doubt)
The accused was convicted by a jury of sexual assault.  Credibility was a central issue at trial.  The Court restored the conviction, holding that the judge's jury charge was sufficient.  Where credibility is in issue, a judge charging a jury must clearly leave no doubt that the burden is on the Crown to prove every element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the jury does not have to choose between competing versions of events.
Majority/Dissent: 7/0

R. v. Daley, 2007 SCC 53
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Criminal law / Charge to jury / Intoxication defence)
After a night of drinking, D's common law wife was found murdered.  D was convicted of second degree murder at trial, after the jury rejected his defence of intoxication.  The issue before the Court was whether the judge's charge to the jury on the defence of intoxication was sufficient.  The Court held that the jury charge was sufficient, and outlined the defence of intoxication and the elements required for a jury charge on the defence.  Note, however, the strong dissent in this case.
Majority/Dissent: 5/4