|
Criminal - Jury Charge (5). R. v. McKenzie
In R. v. McKenzie (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a criminal appeal, this brought against convictions on "three counts of assault".
Here the court considered general principles regarding jury charges:a. Governing Principles
[32] In R. v. Abdullahi, 2023 SCC 19, 483 D.L.R. (4th) 1, the Supreme Court of Canada instructed appellate courts to take a functional approach when reviewing portions of a jury instruction for potential legal error. At para. 72, Rowe J. summarized the approach to be taken by the reviewing court:In sum, when reviewing a jury charge for potential legal error, appellate courts should adopt a functional approach by reading the charge as a whole and determining whether the overall effect of the charge achieved its function: to properly equip the jury in the circumstances of the trial to decide the case according to the law and the evidence. The appellate court’s task needs at all times to be directed to this function. It is helpful to view a properly equipped jury as one that is both accurately and sufficiently instructed. The appellate court should consider if the jury had an accurate understanding of the law from what the judge said in the charge, bearing in mind that an instruction does not need to meet an idealized model, nor must it use prescribed wording. The appellate court should also consider if the judge erred by failing to give an instruction, either with sufficient detail or at all. While some instructions are mandatory and their omission will constitute an error of law, whether other instructions are needed will be contingent on the circumstances of the case. Whenever an instruction is required, the judge needs to provide that instruction with sufficient detail for the jury to undertake its task. The circumstances of the trial cannot replace the judge’s duty to ensure the jury is properly equipped, but they do inform what the jury needed to understand to decide the case. [Emphasis in original.]
|
