R. v. Brown, 2017 SCC 10, [2017] 1 SCR 166

  

 

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

 

Citation: R. v. Brown, 2017 SCC 10, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 166

Appeal heard: February 20, 2017 Judgment rendered: February 20, 2017 Docket: 37153

 

Between:

Her Majesty The Queen

Appellant

 

and

 

Adam Michael Brown

Respondent

 

 

 

 

Coram: Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon and Rowe JJ.

 

Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 2)

Abella J. (Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon and Rowe JJ. concurring)

 

 

 

 

 

 

R. v. Brown, 2017 SCC 10, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 166

 

 

 

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                                 Appellant

v.

Adam Michael Brown                                                                                  Respondent

 

 

 

Indexed as:  R. v. Brown

 

 

 

2017 SCC 10

 

 

 

File No.:  37153.

 

 

 

2017:  February 20.

 

 

 

Present:  Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon and Rowe JJ.

 

 

 

on appeal from court of appeal for alberta

 

                    Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility — Fresh evidence — Accused charged with second degree murder and assault with a weapon following shooting — Accused seeking to adduce new evidence on appeal consisting of statements of witness made at trial of co-accused and to police after accused’s trial and suggesting he was not shooter — Court of Appeal finding that criteria for admission of new evidence met and that new evidence should be admitted — Admission of fresh evidence, setting aside of convictions and order for new trial upheld.

 

 

 

                    APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Berger, McDonald and Bielby JJ.A.), 2016 ABCA 192, 338 C.C.C. (3d) 123, [2016] A.J. No. 640 (QL), 2016 CarswellAlta 1190 (WL Can.), allowing the accused’s application to admit new evidence, setting aside his convictions for second degree murder and assault with a weapon entered by Belzil J., 2010 ABQB 720, [2016] A.J. No. 1370 (QL), 2010 CarswellAlta 2334 (WL Can.), and ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed.

 

                    Troy Couillard, for the appellant.

 

                    Daniel J. Song and Vincent Rizzuto, for the respondent.

 

                    The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

 

[1]                              Abella J. — In all the circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that Mr. Sahal’s K.G.B. statement was admissible, was reasonably capable of belief, and could reasonably have affected the outcome.

 

[2]                              The appeal is therefore dismissed.

 

                    Judgment accordingly.

 

                    Solicitor for the appellant:  Attorney General of Alberta, Edmonton.

 

                    Solicitors for the respondent:  Sprake Song & Konye, Vancouver.