Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

Harper (Down) v. The Queen

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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. Leonoff

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent Counsel: J.G. Dangerfield, Q.C.; S.J. Whitley

03

Procedural history

  1. 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

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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

Source document

Supreme Court of Canada

Judgment· 8 December 1980

[1980] 2 SCR 366

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.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Erven v. The Queen, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 926

Case cited

(1980), 2 Man. R. (2d) 153 (Man. C.A.)

Case cited

Criminal Code s.613(1)(b)(iii)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.