Example Jury Instructions: Difference between revisions
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
- < Procedure and Practice
- < Trials
- < Juries
Introduction
The following contains quotations of instructions that were considered by appellate courts as being adequate in certain circumstances.
Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
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."
- ↑ R v Lifchus, [1997] 3 SCR 320, 1997 CanLII 319 (SCC), per Cory J
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
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