R. v. Martin
The trial judge committed two errors of law—charging the jury that intoxication was available as a defence in a general intent offence and failing to instruct the jury in accordance with s.33.1 of the Criminal Code—and those errors were sufficiently important and potentially prejudicial that the acquittal could not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C31324
- Parties
- Appellant: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: Darren Ross Martin
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 25 October 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Acquittal; Decision of Court of Appeal Ordering New Trial
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside; new trial ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Intoxication Defence, Self Induced Intoxication, Section 33.1 Criminal Code, Consent Vitiation, Aggravated Assault, Jury Instructions
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Appellant
Darren Ross Martin
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Acquittal; Decision of Court of Appeal Ordering New Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred by instructing the jury that intoxication was a defence
- 2 Whether the trial judge failed to instruct the jury in accordance with s.33.1 of the Criminal Code
- 3 Whether the trial judge failed to instruct the jury that consent was vitiated in the circumstances
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge committed two errors of law—charging the jury that intoxication was available as a defence in a general intent offence and failing to instruct the jury in accordance with s.33.1 of the Criminal Code—and those errors were sufficiently important and potentially prejudicial that the acquittal could not stand; appeal allowed and new trial ordered.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside; new trial ordered.
Orders
- Acquittal set aside
- New trial ordered
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Martin Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1999-10-25 Docket numbers C31324 Judges Labrosse, Jean-Marc; Laskin, John Ivan; O’Connor, Dennis Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 19991025 DOCKET: C31324 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Appellant) v. DARREN ROSS MARTIN (Respondent) BEFORE: LABROSSE, LASKIN and O'CONNOR JJ.A. COUNSEL: Gregory J. Tweney, for the appellant Michael H. O'Brien, for the respondent HEARD: October 14, 1999 On appeal from the acquittal of the respondent by a judge and jury on December 21, 1998 ENDORSEMENT [1] The respondent was acquitted on a charge of aggravated assault by a court composed of a judge and jury. The Crown appeals the acquittal on the following three grounds: 1) the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that the defence of intoxication was available to the accused; 2) the trial judge failed to instruct the jury in accordance with s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code; and 3) the trial judge failed to instruct the jury that consent to the intentional application of force was vitiated in the circumstances of this case. [2] Neither the Crown nor the defence submitted to the jury that intoxication was a defence to the charge of aggravated assault. It is unclear why the trial judge chose to charge the jury on intoxication. Clearly, the offence of aggravated assault is a crime of general intent. See R. v. Daviault (1994), 93 C.C.C. (3d) 23 (S.C.C.). The defence of intoxication was not available in this case. The trial judge's instruction on it was an error of law. [3] The trial judge should have charged the jury in accordance with s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code. This section would have made it clear to the jury that self-induced intoxication was not available as a defence to the respondent. The trial judge's failure to charge on s. 33.1 was also an error of law. [4] Although it would have been preferable had the trial judge briefly charged the jury on the basis stated in R. v. Jobidon (1991), 66 C.C.C. (3d) 454 (S.C.C.) at 494-6, we are not persuaded that the trial judge committed an error on this issue. He made it clear to the jury that the victim had not consented to the application of force. [5] In our view, the two errors of law are of such importance that it cannot be said the verdict would necessarily have been the same, absent these errors. [6] The appeal is allowed, the acquittal is set aside, and a new trial is ordered. (signed) "J. M. Labrosse J.A." (signed) "John Laskin J.A." (signed) "Dennis O'Connor J.A."