Example Jury Instructions: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 24: Line 24:


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}
==Circumstantial Evidence==
==Expert Evidence==


==Challenge for Cause==
==Challenge for Cause==
Line 33: Line 38:


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}
==Unsavoury (Vetrovec) Witnesses==
{{seealso|Disreputable and Unsavoury Witnesses}}
<!--
R v Bailey ONCA
R v Ballantyne MBCA
R v Boone ONCA
R v Bradshaw SCC
Cain ONCA
Charles ONCA
Chartrand MBCA
Clarke SKCA
Fatunmbi MBCA
Figueroa ONCA
Greenwood NSCA
Jones-Solomon ONCA
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
-->
==Defences==

Revision as of 13:59, 30 January 2019

Introduction

The following contains quotations of instructions that were considered by appellate courts as being adequate in certain circumstances.

Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

See also: Standard of Proof

It must be explained that:[1]

  • "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."
  1. R v Lifchus, [1997] 3 SCR 320, 1997 CanLII 319 (SCC), per Cory J

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

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]
  1. R v McKenzie, 2018 ONSC 2764 (CanLII), per Campbell J, at para 25


Unsavoury (Vetrovec) Witnesses

See also: Disreputable and Unsavoury Witnesses

Defences