Harper (Down) v. The Queen
- Citation
- [1980] 2 SCR 366
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 8 December 1980
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 8 December 1980
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Failure to hold a voir dire on a statement that related to a crucial point in the trial likely affected the verdict; s.613(1)(b)(iii) did not apply to cure the error, therefore the conviction must be quashed and a new trial ordered (reaffirming Erven).
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered; judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal set aside.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal set aside
- Conviction quashed
- New trial directed
02
Material facts
Parties
Katie Harper (also known as Katie Down)
Appellant Counsel: H.E. Wolch; H. LeonoffHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: J.G. Dangerfield, Q.C.; S.J. Whitley03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge erred by failing to hold a voir dire regarding a statement allegedly made by the accused to a police officer
- 02
Whether s.613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code applied to validate admission of the statement without a voir dire
- 03
Whether the failure to hold a voir dire could have affected the degree of murder and thus warranted a new trial
- 04
Whether new evidence should be admitted (raised but not decided)
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to hold a voir dire on a statement allegedly made to police that went to a crucial point and could have altered the verdict between first and second degree murder, requiring a new trial.
- Respondent
- The Crown argued the conviction should stand and that the provisions of s.613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code applied such that a voir dire was not required or that any error was not material to the verdict.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Erven v. The Queen, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 926
A voir dire is required before admitting an accused's statement that relates to a crucial point and may affect the verdict
- 02
Criminal Code s.613(1)(b)(iii)
Section 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code does not automatically cure a failure to hold a necessary voir dire in appropriate circumstances
- 03
Harper (Down) v. The Queen, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 366
A conviction must be quashed and a new trial ordered where procedural failure may have affected the verdict on a material issue
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Failure to hold a voir dire on a statement that related to a crucial point in the trial likely affected the verdict; s.613(1)(b)(iii) did not apply to cure the error, therefore the conviction must be quashed and a new trial ordered (reaffirming Erven).
Obiter and limits
- It was unnecessary to decide the appellant's second ground regarding the introduction of new evidence.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered; judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal set aside.
- Appeal allowed
- Judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal set aside
- Conviction quashed
- New trial directed
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 8 December 1980
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 8 December 1980
Harper (Down) v. The Queen Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1980-12-08 Report [1980] 2 SCR 366 Judges Laskin, Bora; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Estey, Willard Zebedee; McIntyre, William Rogers; Chouinard, Julien; Lamer, Antonio On appeal from Manitoba Subjects Criminal law Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Harper (Down) v. The Queen, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 366 Date: 1980-12-08 Katie Harper also known as Katie Down Appellant; and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent. 1980: December 8. Present: Laskin C.J. and Ritchie, Dickson, Estey, Mclntyre, Chouinard and Lamer JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR MANITOBA Criminal law—Murder conviction—Failure to hold voir dire on crucial statement allegedly made by accused to police officer—New trial ordered—Non-applicability of s. 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba[1], dismissing, by a majority, the appellant’s appeal against her conviction of first degree murder. Appeal allowed. H.E. Wolch and H. Leonoff, for the appellant. J.G. Dangerfield, Q.C., and S.J. Whitley, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by THE CHIEF JUSTICE—We are all of the opinion that, in the circumstances of this case, there should be a new trial for failure to hold a voir dire on a statement allegedly made by the accused to a police officer which, admittedly, related to a crucial point in the trial and could well have made the difference between first and second degree murder. We reaffirm the judgment of this Court in Erven v. The Queen[2]. This is not a case for applying s. 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code. It becomes unnecessary, therefore, to deal with the second point raised by the appellant respecting the introduction of new evidence. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal is set aside, and the conviction is quashed and a new trial is directed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Wolch, Pinx, Scur-field, Martin & Wyant, Winnipeg. Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General for Manitoba, Winnipeg. [1] (1980), 2 Man. R. (2d) 153. [2] [1979] 1 S.C.R. 926.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.