440:
select one version in preference to the other, and yet, on a whole of the evidence, be left with a reasonable doubt. The effect of putting such a position to the jury is to shift the burden to the accused of demonstrating his presumption of innocence, since the jury might believe that the accused could not be acquitted unless the defence evidence was believed. It is evident that the trial judge erred in the case of W.D., making error in recharge as to the standard of proof required of the Crown. The Court examined whether the error was reversible in light of the correct instructions that had been given to the jury minutes prior to the recharge during the main charge. In other words, the trial judge's error of putting such an either/or proposition to the jury causes the exclusion of a third alternative: that the jury, without believing the accused, after considering the accused's evidence in the context of the evidence as a whole, may still have reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
150:
451:, credibility is a fundamental issue. When dealing with the burden of proof, the trial judge is dealing with the most fundamental rule of the legal game. It is especially important that it be very clear and unequivocal that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt if, after considering the evidence of the accused and the complainant together with any other evidence, there is a doubt. The charge absolutely did not make this clear to the jury.
458:
the Crown would have failed to discharge its onus only if they believed the evidence of the accused. The jury would be uncertain as to which version was correct and it's pure speculation that they would have accepted the first version rather than the second one, which was characterized by the trial judge as "better". This takes on additional significance in light of the statement to the jury that the charge might contain errors that would necessitate a recharge.
33:
457:
noted that the jury were told two things which were in conflict. First, the main charge, in dealing with the credibility of the accused, the Crown could fail to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt even if the jury had a doubt about the credibility of the accused's story. Then, on the recharge,
443:
Where an error has been made in the instruction of jury members on the burden of proof in a criminal case, the fact that the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on that issue elsewhere in the charge is a strong indication that the jury were not in fact left in doubt as to the burden resting on
439:
In a similar case, R v. S (WD) 3 S.C.R. 521, it was reiterated that it is erroneous to direct a jury that they must accept the Crown's evidence or that of the defence. Again, to put forth such an either/or approach excludes the very real and legitimate possibility that the jury may not be able to
406:
It is incorrect to instruct a jury in a criminal case that, in order to render a verdict, they must decide whether they believe the defence evidence or the Crown's evidence. Putting this either/or proposition to the jury excludes the third alternative; namely, that the jury, without believing the
383:
or whether they believed the appellant. The counsel for the appellant objected to the recharge, but the trial judge's response was that he did not feel that he left the jury with the impression that they must accept the appellant's evidence in order to acquit him. Thus, the appeal to the Court of
355:
If in fact you believe the accused then clearly nothing took place and in fact the Crown will have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty as charged. On the other hand if you in fact believe the complainant totally, then he is guilty as charged.
371:
was whether "the erroneous recharge, viewed in the context of the charge as a whole and the short time that elapsed between the main charge and the recharge, could be said to have left the jury with any doubt that if they had a reasonable doubt they must
426:
Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the
415:
Ideally, appropriate instructions on the issue of credibility should be given, not only during the main charge, but on any recharge. A trial judge might well instruct the jury on the question of credibility along these
339:
At the end of the trial the judge issued its charge to the jury without mention of any issue of credibility. Less than ten minutes later the Crown made a request for a recharge to bring this issue up. Counsel for the
431:
Nevertheless, on examining the circumstances of the error as a whole, Cory believed that the jury had been properly instructed and the error was not sufficient to bring about an acquittal.
314:
DW, a 42-year-old man, was charged with sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl, TW, on two occasions while driving her to her boyfriend's house. TW was staying at DW's house at the time.
407:
accused, after considering the accused's evidence in the context of the evidence as a whole, may still have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
551:
379:
The judge erred in the short recharge in that he characterized the core issue to be determined by the jury as to whether they believed the
325:
stains from a Type A secretor, which included DW, but also 32% of the population. The secretor type of the boyfriend was never known.
541:
467:
556:
423:
Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.
546:
332:. She was unemployed, illiterate, and a dropout, and had been kicked out of several houses including Dw's house. The
105:
348:
in order for the judge to explain what evidence may assist the jury in making a finding on the issue of credibility.
124:
77:
62:
84:
58:
510:
91:
523:
220:
54:
240:
73:
506:
43:
17:
502:
318:
283:
155:
47:
336:
of DW was poor, but it is uncertain whether it was due to lack of intelligence or deception.
299:
8:
216:
448:
236:
411:
Cory describes the correct method of assessing credibility as follows at p. 310:
345:
98:
171:
149:
396:
228:
361:
341:
295:
291:
535:
420:
First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.
212:
205:
454:
303:
224:
380:
392:
232:
333:
328:
At trial before a judge and jury the defence argued that she was not
32:
329:
287:
373:
368:
402:
In considering the recharge, he found that the judge erred.
322:
351:
During the recharge, the judge charged to the jury that:
317:Besides her claim of the event, there was little
533:
286:on assessing guilt based on the credibility of
282:, 1 S.C.R. 742 is a leading decision of the
255:Cory J., joined by Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.
61:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
360:On these instructions the jury returned a
125:Learn how and when to remove this message
387:
14:
534:
468:List of Supreme Court of Canada cases
552:Canadian criminal procedure case law
59:adding citations to reliable sources
26:
524:SCC Case Information - Docket 22170
294:. More specifically, W.D. examines
24:
473:
25:
568:
495:
488:Nadeau v The Queen 2 S.C.R. 570
384:Appeal was initially dismissed.
148:
31:
517:
13:
1:
542:Supreme Court of Canada cases
309:
137:Supreme Court of Canada case
7:
461:
434:
10:
573:
557:Canadian evidence case law
485:R v Thatcher 1 S.C.R. 652
164:Hearing: February 1, 1991
547:1991 in Canadian case law
482:R v Corbett 1 S.C.R. 670
267:
259:
251:
246:
201:
196:
188:
180:
170:
163:
147:
142:
491:R v S (WD) 3 S.C.R. 521
166:Judgment: March 28, 1991
526:Supreme Court of Canada
503:Supreme Court of Canada
479:R v Morin 2 S.C.R. 345
319:circumstantial evidence
284:Supreme Court of Canada
192:D.W.'s appeal dismissed
156:Supreme Court of Canada
429:
409:
358:
413:
404:
399:, denied the appeal.
353:
221:Claire L'Heureux-Dubé
388:Reasons for judgment
55:improve this article
321:. Her panties had
237:Beverley McLachlin
367:The issue of the
275:
274:
241:William Stevenson
135:
134:
127:
109:
16:(Redirected from
564:
527:
521:
300:burdens of proof
229:Charles Gonthier
217:GĂ©rard La Forest
210:Puisne Justices:
197:Court membership
152:
140:
139:
130:
123:
119:
116:
110:
108:
67:
35:
27:
21:
572:
571:
567:
566:
565:
563:
562:
561:
532:
531:
530:
522:
518:
498:
476:
474:Further reading
464:
437:
428:
424:
421:
417:
390:
312:
208:
165:
159:
138:
131:
120:
114:
111:
68:
66:
52:
36:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
570:
560:
559:
554:
549:
544:
529:
528:
515:
514:
513:
497:
496:External links
494:
493:
492:
489:
486:
483:
480:
475:
472:
471:
470:
463:
460:
447:As Sopinka J.
436:
433:
419:
389:
386:
362:guilty verdict
344:requested the
311:
308:
296:sexual assault
292:criminal trial
273:
272:
269:
265:
264:
261:
257:
256:
253:
249:
248:
244:
243:
203:Chief Justice:
199:
198:
194:
193:
190:
186:
185:
182:
178:
177:
174:
168:
167:
161:
160:
153:
145:
144:
136:
133:
132:
74:"R v W" D
39:
37:
30:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
569:
558:
555:
553:
550:
548:
545:
543:
540:
539:
537:
525:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
501:Full text of
500:
499:
490:
487:
484:
481:
478:
477:
469:
466:
465:
459:
456:
452:
450:
445:
441:
432:
425:
418:
412:
408:
403:
400:
398:
394:
385:
382:
377:
375:
370:
365:
363:
357:
352:
349:
347:
343:
337:
335:
331:
326:
324:
320:
315:
307:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
247:Reasons given
245:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
213:Bertha Wilson
211:
207:
206:Antonio Lamer
204:
200:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
173:
169:
162:
158:
157:
151:
146:
141:
129:
126:
118:
107:
104:
100:
97:
93:
90:
86:
83:
79:
76: –
75:
71:
70:Find sources:
64:
60:
56:
50:
49:
45:
40:This article
38:
34:
29:
28:
19:
519:
505:decision at
453:
446:
442:
438:
430:
422:
414:
410:
405:
401:
393:Justice Cory
391:
378:
366:
359:
354:
350:
338:
327:
316:
313:
304:evidence law
278:
277:
276:
271:McLachlin J.
225:John Sopinka
209:
202:
176:1 S.C.R. 742
154:
121:
112:
102:
95:
88:
81:
69:
53:Please help
41:
444:the Crown.
381:complainant
536:Categories
509: and
395:, for the
310:Background
298:cases and
263:Sopinka J.
233:Peter Cory
181:Docket No.
115:April 2015
85:newspapers
449:dissented
334:testimony
288:witnesses
279:R v W (D)
172:Citations
143:R v W (D)
42:does not
462:See also
435:Comments
427:accused.
397:majority
346:recharge
330:credible
252:Majority
18:R v W(D)
455:Sopinka
268:Dissent
260:Dissent
99:scholar
63:removed
48:sources
511:CanLII
416:lines:
374:acquit
369:appeal
189:Ruling
184:22170
101:
94:
87:
80:
72:
507:LexUM
342:Crown
323:semen
290:in a
106:JSTOR
92:books
78:news
46:any
44:cite
376:."
302:in
57:by
538::
364:.
306:.
239:,
235:,
231:,
227:,
223:,
219:,
215:,
128:)
122:(
117:)
113:(
103:·
96:·
89:·
82:·
65:.
51:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
