R. v. Michaud, [1996] 2 SCR 458

R. v.  Michaud, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 458

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                   Appellant

v.

Félix Michaud              Respondent

Indexed as:  R. v. Michaud

File No.:   24798.

1996:   June 20.

Present:  L’Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for new brunswick

Criminal law -- Charge to jury -- Crown’s address to jury exceeding limits laid down by this Court -- Whether trial judge inadequately directed jury with respect to these improprieties -- Whether charge  defective with respect to corroborative evidence or alibi evidence -- Whether application should be considered to adduce fresh  evidence.

Cases Cited

Referred to:   Boucher v. The Queen, [1955] S.C.R. 16.

APPEAL from a judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal (1995),  161 N.B.R. (2d) 215, 414 A.P.R. 215, 98 C.C.C. (3d) 121, allowing an appeal from conviction by  Daigle J. sitting with jury and ordering a new trial.  Appeal dismissed.

Graham J. Sleeth, Q.C., for the appellant.

Kim Jensen, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

1                                   Sopinka J. -- In this appeal a new trial was ordered by the Court of Appeal (1995),  161 N.B.R. (2d) 215, 414 A.P.R. 215, 98 C.C.C. (3d) 121, on a number of grounds based on errors in the charge to the jury.  We have concluded that the address to the jury by Crown counsel exceeded the limits laid down by this Court in Boucher v. The Queen, [1955] S.C.R. 16.

2                                   In the circumstances the trial judge ought to have specifically directed the jury with respect to these improprieties.  The charge by the trial judge was inadequate in this respect.

3                                   With respect to the other grounds, counsel for the respondent properly conceded that the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge’s charge was defective in treating as corroborative, evidence that did not implicate the accused.  Such evidence need not, although it may, implicate the accused.  We find no error in the charge in respect of this ground nor in the charge relating to the alibi evidence.

4                                   The appeal is dismissed.  In the circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider the application to adduce fresh evidence.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitor for the appellant:  The Attorney General for New Brunswick, Fredericton.

Solicitors for the respondent:  MacElwain & Renouf, Florenceville.