SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Between:
Jean-Philippe Mailhot
Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Moldaver and Wagner JJ.
| Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 2) |
The Court |
R. v. Mailhot, 2013 SCC 17, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 96
Jean‑Philippe Mailhot Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Mailhot
2013 SCC 17
File No.: 34881.
2013: March 19; 2013: March 28.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Moldaver and Wagner JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Criminal law — Trial — Charge to jury — Fairness — Trial judge providing jurors with summary of theory of defence but also providing opinion on evidence in support of, or contrary to, that theory — Accused convicted of second degree murder — Whether opinions offered by trial judge amounted to opinions as to verdict.
Held: The appeal should be allowed and a new trial ordered.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Duval Hesler, Beauregard and Doyon JJ.A.), 2012 QCCA 964, SOQUIJ AZ‑50858815, [2012] J.Q. no 4863 (QL), 2012 CarswellQue 5082, upholding the accused’s conviction for second degree murder. Appeal allowed.
Nicholas St‑Jacques, Lida Sara Nouraie and Christian Desrosiers, for the appellant.
Carole Lebeuf and Alexandre Boucher, for the respondent.
The following is the judgment delivered by
[1] The Court — We all agree with Doyon J.A., dissenting in the Court of Appeal, that a new trial is required because of the effect of the trial judge’s charge on the fairness of the trial (2012 QCCA 964 (CanLII)).
[2] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and a new trial is ordered.
Appeal allowed.
Solicitors for the appellant: Desrosiers, Joncas, Massicotte, Montréal.
Solicitor for the respondent: Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales du Québec, Montréal.
Email this Content