Example Jury Instructions: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Introduction== | ==Introduction== | ||
{{seealso|Established Areas of Jury Instruction}} | {{seealso|Established Areas of Jury Instruction}} | ||
The following contains quotations of instructions that were considered by appellate courts as being | 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 | |||
==Selection Process Instructions to Jury Panel== | |||
===Familiarity with Participants=== | |||
An instruction that explains how to assess whether the potential juror may be disqualified for familiarity with persons in the trial should include:<ref> | |||
see {{CanLIIR|Corbière|gvddw|2016 ONSC 6820 (CanLII)}}{{atL|gvddw|7}} re citation to Watt's manual on the topic | |||
</ref> | |||
{{reflist|2}} | |||
==Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt== | ==Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt== | ||
Revision as of 13:33, 11 October 2020
- < Procedure and Practice
- < Trials
- < Juries
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
Selection Process Instructions to Jury Panel
Familiarity with Participants
An instruction that explains how to assess whether the potential juror may be disqualified for familiarity with persons in the trial should include:[1]
- ↑ see R v Corbière, 2016 ONSC 6820 (CanLII), at para 7 re citation to Watt's manual on the topic
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
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]