Schmidt v. The King

Schmidt v. The King

The trial judge's repeated instructions that each written confession was only evidence against the person who made it were sufficient; although some illustrative examples of s.69(2) were inapt and the judge could have applied the law to the evidence more fully, those imperfections did not produce a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice under s.1014(2); a reasonable jury properly directed would have convicted the appellant, therefore the appeal must be dismissed and the conviction affirmed.

Citation
[1945] SCR 438
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: William Schmidt; Respondent/defendant: His Majesty The King
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 February 1945
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Appeal (conviction Affirmed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction for murder affirmed
Legal Topics
Confessions of Co Accused, Jury Directions, Murder (s.259), Common Intention (s.69(2)), Miscarriage of Justice Proviso (s.1014(2))
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Confessions of Co Accused Jury Directions Murder (s.259) Common Intention (s.69(2)) Miscarriage of Justice Proviso (s.1014(2))

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Schmidt

Appellant/plaintiff

His Majesty The King

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Appeal (conviction Affirmed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial judge erred in failing to warn jury immediately and sufficiently that written confessions by co-accused are evidence only against the maker
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to properly define and apply the law of murder (Criminal Code s.259(a),(b)) as it related to appellant
  3. 3 Whether misstatements/inapt illustrations regarding s.69(2) (common intention) rendered the trial unfair and caused a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice under s.1014(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's repeated instructions that each written confession was only evidence against the person who made it were sufficient; although some illustrative examples of s.69(2) were inapt and the judge could have applied the law to the evidence more fully, those imperfections did not produce a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice under s.1014(2); a reasonable jury properly directed would have convicted the appellant, therefore the appeal must be dismissed and the conviction affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction for murder affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction for murder affirmed