R. v. Aalders

R. v. Aalders

Majority held Crown rebuttal evidence admissible because the defence testimony introduced a material and unforeseeable change on an essential issue (origin and significance of money/recent possession tied to planned robbery); the jury charge properly treated planning and deliberation as distinct elements; and there...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1993] 2 SCR 482
Parties
Appellant/accused: Gifford Aalders; Respondent/crown: Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 1993
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (first Degree Murder) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Quebec Court of Appeal; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction for first degree murder affirmed (Sopinka J. dissenting).
Legal Topics
Rebuttal Evidence Admissibility, Murder — First Degree, Planning and Deliberation, Jury Charge, Alternative Verdict — Manslaughter
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Rebuttal Evidence Admissibility Murder — First Degree Planning and Deliberation Jury Charge Alternative Verdict — Manslaughter

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gifford Aalders

Appellant/accused

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent/crown

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (first Degree Murder) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Quebec Court of Appeal; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Crown rebuttal evidence regarding social assistance was admissible
  2. 2 Whether trial judge adequately instructed jury on planning and deliberation for first degree murder
  3. 3 Whether trial judge should have left manslaughter as an alternative verdict

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held Crown rebuttal evidence admissible because the defence testimony introduced a material and unforeseeable change on an essential issue (origin and significance of money/recent possession tied to planned robbery); the jury charge properly treated planning and deliberation as distinct elements; and there was no air of reality to manslaughter given the facts, therefore conviction for first degree murder stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction for first degree murder affirmed (Sopinka J. dissenting).

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction for first degree murder upheld