Example Jury Instructions: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z][a-z][A-Z][a-z]+)," to "''$1''," |
No edit summary |
||
| (36 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | [[fr:Exemple d'instructions au jury]] | ||
{{HeaderJuryInstructions}} | |||
==Introduction== | ==Introduction== | ||
The following contains quotations of instructions that were considered by appellate courts as being | {{seealso|Established Areas of Jury Instruction}} | ||
The following contains quotations of instructions that were endorsed or considered by appellate courts as being sufficient under certain circumstances. There are also outlines that enumerate types of instructions. | |||
There are four types of instructions: 1) selection instructions 2) introductory/preliminary 3) mid-trial instructions and 4) final | |||
==Example Types== | |||
* [[Example Jury Selection Instructions]] | |||
* [[Example Preliminary Jury Instructions]] | |||
* [[Example Mid-Trial Jury Instructions]] | |||
* [[Example Final Jury Instructions]] | |||
=Evidence= | |||
==Admissions== | ==Admissions== | ||
{{seealso|Admissions}} | {{seealso|Admissions}} | ||
* "An admission stands in the place of and renders unnecessary testimony or exhibits to prove what has been admitted. Jurors are to take what is admitted as proven fact and consider the facts admitted, along with the rest of the evidence in deciding the case."< | * "An admission stands in the place of and renders unnecessary testimony or exhibits to prove what has been admitted. Jurors are to take what is admitted as proven fact and consider the facts admitted, along with the rest of the evidence in deciding the case."<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRx|Brookfield Gardens Inc|hq5mk|2018 PECA 2 (CanLII)}}{{perPEICA|Murphy JA}}{{atL|hq5mk|25}} | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
==Circumstantial Evidence== | |||
<!-- | |||
Bradshaw SCC | |||
Jean ONCA | |||
Calnen NSCA | |||
Henderson MBCA | |||
Mayuran SCC | |||
McIntyre ONCA | |||
Melvin NSCA | |||
Oland NBCA | |||
Wasser NBCA | |||
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE: | |||
Pruden MBCA | |||
Roulette MBCA | |||
Schenkels MBCA | |||
--> | |||
==Expert Evidence== | |||
=Selection= | |||
==Challenge for Cause== | ==Challenge for Cause== | ||
{{seealso|Challenge for Cause}} | {{seealso|Challenge for Cause}} | ||
===Race=== | ===Race=== | ||
* "Thinking about your own beliefs, would your ability to judge the evidence in this case without bias, prejudice or partiality, be affected by the fact that [accused] is black?"<ref> | * "Thinking about your own beliefs, would your ability to judge the evidence in this case without bias, prejudice or partiality, be affected by the fact that [accused] is black?"<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRx|McKenzie|hs7r3|2018 ONSC 2764 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Campbell J}}{{atL|hs7r3|25}} | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
==Unsavoury (Vetrovec) Witnesses== | |||
{{seealso|Disreputable and Unsavoury Witnesses}} | |||
<!-- | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Bailey|gs9bb|2016 ONCA 516 (CanLII)|339 CCC (3d) 463}} | |||
{{CanLIIRx|Ballantyne|gwvgr|2017 MBCA 4 (CanLII)}} | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Boone|gp0k1|2016 ONCA 227 (CanLII)|347 OAC 250}}{{perONCA|Brown JA}} | |||
''R v Bradshaw'', SCC | |||
Cain ONCA | |||
Charles ONCA | |||
Chartrand MBCA | |||
Clarke SKCA | |||
Fatunmbi MBCA | |||
Figueroa ONCA | |||
{{CanLIIRx|Greenwood|g8vr5|2014 NSCA 80 (CanLII)}}{{perNSCA-H|Fichaud JA}} | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Jones-Solomon|glc9p|2015 ONCA 654 (CanLII)|329 CCC (3d) 191}}{{perONCA|Brown JA}} | |||
Keeping NLCA | |||
Kler ONCA | |||
Labrossiere MBCA | |||
Levesque SCC | |||
Mack SCC | |||
MO ONCA | |||
Moffit ONCA | |||
Paddy SKCA | |||
PB 2015 ONCA | |||
Ponce MBCA | |||
Ricahrd MBCA | |||
Rafferty ONCA | |||
Roussin MBCA | |||
Van Every ONCA | |||
Worm SKCA | |||
Yelle NWTCA | |||
--> | |||
==Offences== | |||
===Murder=== | |||
* On the issue of intent, the Judge must instruct the jury to "consider all of the evidence" when deciding the issue of intent.<ref> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Pruden (DJ)|frpwm|2012 MBCA 62 (CanLII)|280 Man R (2d) 207}}{{perMBCA|Steele JA}}{{atL|frpwm|4}} </ref> | |||
* Inferences on intent "inference that may be rebutted by evidence of intoxication."<Ref> | |||
{{ibid1|Pruden}}{{atL|frpwm|6}}</ref> | |||
{{reflist|2}} | |||
==Defences== | |||
{{reflist|2}} | |||
==See Also== | |||
* [https://www.nji-inm.ca/index.cfm/publications/model-jury-instructions/?langSwitch=en Model Jury Instructions - National Judicial Institute] | |||
Latest revision as of 14:13, 7 September 2024
- < Procedure and Practice
- < Trials
- < Juries
- < Example Jury Instructions
Introduction
The following contains quotations of instructions that were endorsed or considered by appellate courts as being sufficient under certain circumstances. There are also outlines that enumerate types of instructions.
There are four types of instructions: 1) selection instructions 2) introductory/preliminary 3) mid-trial instructions and 4) final
Example Types
- Example Jury Selection Instructions
- Example Preliminary Jury Instructions
- Example Mid-Trial Jury Instructions
- Example Final Jury Instructions
Evidence
Admissions
- "An admission stands in the place of and renders unnecessary testimony or exhibits to prove what has been admitted. Jurors are to take what is admitted as proven fact and consider the facts admitted, along with the rest of the evidence in deciding the case."[1]
- ↑ R v Brookfield Gardens Inc, 2018 PECA 2 (CanLII), per Murphy JA, at para 25
Circumstantial Evidence
Expert Evidence
Selection
Challenge for Cause
Race
- "Thinking about your own beliefs, would your ability to judge the evidence in this case without bias, prejudice or partiality, be affected by the fact that [accused] is black?"[1]
- ↑ R v McKenzie, 2018 ONSC 2764 (CanLII), per Campbell J, at para 25
Unsavoury (Vetrovec) Witnesses
Offences
Murder
- On the issue of intent, the Judge must instruct the jury to "consider all of the evidence" when deciding the issue of intent.[1]
- Inferences on intent "inference that may be rebutted by evidence of intoxication."[2]
Defences