The King v. Manchuk

The King v. Manchuk

Section 261 does not extend lenity to murders where the accused knows the victim was uninvolved, but where the accused, in the sudden heat of passion, acted under the belief that the victim was a party to provoking acts by a third person, the issue of provocation is for the jury; the trial judge's failure to leave...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1938] SCR 18
Parties
Plaintiff; Appellant: His Majesty the King; Defendant; Respondent: William Manchuk
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 December 1937
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Decision on Appeal Dismissing Crown's Challenge and Upholding Order for New Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order for new trial upheld
Legal Topics
Culpable Homicide, Provocation, Manslaughter Vs Murder, Jury Directions, Third Party Provocation
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Homicide Evidence Procedure Culpable Homicide Provocation Manslaughter Vs Murder Jury Directions +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Plaintiff; Appellant

William Manchuk

Defendant; Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Decision on Appeal Dismissing Crown's Challenge and Upholding Order for New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether provocation under s.261 can reduce murder to manslaughter when provocation originated with a third person and the victim was not in fact involved
  2. 2 Whether an accused's belief that the victim participated in the provoking acts is sufficient to make provocation available
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by failing to leave the issue of provocation

Ratio Decidendi

Section 261 does not extend lenity to murders where the accused knows the victim was uninvolved, but where the accused, in the sudden heat of passion, acted under the belief that the victim was a party to provoking acts by a third person, the issue of provocation is for the jury; the trial judge's failure to leave that question warranted the Court of Appeal's order for a new trial, which the Supreme Court upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order for new trial upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Order of the Court of Appeal for Ontario setting aside the murder conviction and directing a new trial is upheld.