Example Jury Instructions: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
No edit summary
 
(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[fr:Exemple d'instructions au jury]]
{{HeaderJuryInstructions}}
{{HeaderJuryInstructions}}


Line 7: Line 8:
There are four types of instructions: 1) selection instructions 2) introductory/preliminary 3) mid-trial instructions and 4) final  
There are four types of instructions: 1) selection instructions 2) introductory/preliminary 3) mid-trial instructions and 4) final  


==Types==
==Example Types==
* [[Example Jury Selection Instructions]]
* [[Example Jury Selection Instructions]]
* [[Example Preliminary Jury Instructions]]
* [[Example Preliminary Jury Instructions]]
* [[Example Mid-Trial Jury Instructions]]
* [[Example Mid-Trial Jury Instructions]]
* [[Example Final Jury Instructions]]
* [[Example Final Jury Instructions]]
==Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt==
{{seealso|Standard of Proof}}
It must be explained that:<ref>
''R v Lifchus'', [1997] 3 SCR 320, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqzt 1997 CanLII 319] (SCC){{perSCC|Cory J}}</ref>
* "the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is inextricably intertwined with that principle fundamental to all criminal trials, the presumption of innocence;"
* "the burden of proof rests on the prosecution throughout the trial and never shifts to the accused;"
* "a reasonable doubt is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice;"
* "rather, it is based upon reason and common sense;"
* "it is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence;"
* "it does not involve proof to an absolute certainty; it is not proof beyond any doubt nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt;" and
* "more is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty ‑‑ a jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit."
{{reflist|2}}


=Evidence=
=Evidence=
Line 31: Line 18:
{{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."<ref>
* "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>
''R v Brookfield Gardens Inc.'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hq5mk 2018 PECA 2] (CanLII){{perPEICA|Murphy JA}}{{atL|hq5mk|25}}
{{CanLIIRx|Brookfield Gardens Inc|hq5mk|2018 PECA 2 (CanLII)}}{{perPEICA|Murphy JA}}{{atL|hq5mk|25}}
</ref>
</ref>


Line 61: Line 48:
===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>
''R v McKenzie'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hs7r3 2018 ONSC 2764] (CanLII){{perONSC|Campbell J}}{{atL|hs7r3|25}}
{{CanLIIRx|McKenzie|hs7r3|2018 ONSC 2764 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Campbell J}}{{atL|hs7r3|25}}
</ref>
</ref>


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}


==Unsavoury (Vetrovec) Witnesses==
==Unsavoury (Vetrovec) Witnesses==
Line 71: Line 57:
<!--
<!--


''R v Bailey'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gs9bb 2016 ONCA 516] (CanLII)
{{CanLIIRP|Bailey|gs9bb|2016 ONCA 516 (CanLII)|339 CCC (3d) 463}}


''R v Ballantyne'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gwvgr 2017 MBCA 4] (CanLII)
{{CanLIIRx|Ballantyne|gwvgr|2017 MBCA 4 (CanLII)}}


''R v Boone'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gp0k1 2016 ONCA 227] (CanLII){{perONCA|Brown JA}}
{{CanLIIRP|Boone|gp0k1|2016 ONCA 227 (CanLII)|347 OAC 250}}{{perONCA|Brown JA}}


''R v Bradshaw'', SCC
''R v Bradshaw'', SCC
Line 85: Line 71:
Figueroa ONCA
Figueroa ONCA


''R v Greenwood'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g8vr5 2014 NSCA 80] (CanLII)
{{CanLIIRx|Greenwood|g8vr5|2014 NSCA 80 (CanLII)}}{{perNSCA-H|Fichaud JA}}


''R v Jones-Solomon'', [http://canlii.ca/t/glc9p 2015 ONCA 654] (CanLII)
{{CanLIIRP|Jones-Solomon|glc9p|2015 ONCA 654 (CanLII)|329 CCC (3d) 191}}{{perONCA|Brown JA}}


Keeping NLCA
Keeping NLCA
Line 111: Line 97:
===Murder===
===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>
* On the issue of intent, the Judge must instruct the jury to "consider all of the evidence" when deciding the issue of intent.<ref>
''R v Pruden (DJ)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/frpwm 2012 MBCA 62] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Steele JA}}{{atL|frpwm|4}} </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>
* Inferences on intent "inference that may be rebutted by evidence of intoxication."<Ref>
{{ibid1|Pruden}}{{atL|frpwm|6}}</ref>
{{ibid1|Pruden}}{{atL|frpwm|6}}</ref>


Line 123: Line 109:


==See Also==
==See Also==
* [https://www.nji-inm.ca/index.cfm/publications/model-jury-instructions/?langSwitch=en Model Jury Instructions - National Judicilda Institute]
* [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

Introduction

See also: 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

Evidence

Admissions

See also: 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]
  1. R v Brookfield Gardens Inc, 2018 PECA 2 (CanLII), per Murphy JA, at para 25

Circumstantial Evidence

Expert Evidence

Selection

Challenge for Cause

See also: 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]

Unsavoury (Vetrovec) Witnesses

See also: Disreputable and Unsavoury 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]
  1. R v Pruden (DJ), 2012 MBCA 62 (CanLII), 280 Man R (2d) 207, per Steele JA, at para 4
  2. Pruden, ibid., at para 6

Defences


See Also