La Reine v. Côté

La Reine v. Côté

There was no evidence that intoxication prevented formation or execution of the specific intent so no duty to charge on drunkenness; and when the trial judge's charge is read as a whole against the uncontradicted accomplice evidence, it did not leave the jury under an impression they could convict the accused of capital murder without being satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he had by his own act caused or assisted in causing the injuries — therefore the Court of Appeal erred in ordering a new trial and the jury verdict must be restored.

Citation
[1964] SCR 358
Parties
Appellant (crown): Sa Majesté la Reine (The Crown); Respondent (accused): Marcel Côté
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 March 1964
Procedural Posture
Criminal (capital Murder) Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Quebec Court of Queen's Bench Decision Ordering a New Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction for capital murder reinstated (majority); dissent by Cartwright, Hall and Spence JJ.
Legal Topics
Capital Murder, Jury Instructions, Drunkenness as Defence, Complicity / Joint Enterprise (s.21), Misdirection, New Trial
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Homicide Evidence Capital Murder Jury Instructions Drunkenness as Defence Complicity / Joint Enterprise (s.21) Misdirection +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sa Majesté la Reine (The Crown)

Appellant (crown)

Marcel Côté

Respondent (accused)

Procedural Posture

Criminal (capital Murder) Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Quebec Court of Queen's Bench Decision Ordering a New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge should have charged the jury on drunkenness as a defence to negate specific intent
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury as to the distinction between capital and non-capital murder by failing to define the respective roles of accused and accomplice under s.21(2)
  3. 3 Whether any alleged misdirection amounted to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice warranting a new trial

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that intoxication prevented formation or execution of the specific intent so no duty to charge on drunkenness; and when the trial judge's charge is read as a whole against the uncontradicted accomplice evidence, it did not leave the jury under an impression they could convict the accused of capital murder without being satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he had by his own act caused or assisted in causing the injuries — therefore the Court of Appeal erred in ordering a new trial and the jury verdict must be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction for capital murder reinstated (majority); dissent by Cartwright, Hall and Spence JJ.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Order of Court of Appeal directing a new trial set aside