Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

R. v. Pope

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The majority concluded that the trial judge failed to explain the distinction between murder and manslaughter with sufficient clarity, particularly regarding intent, and that the instructional error could have affected the verdict; accordingly the conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction for second degree murder quashed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction quashed
  • New trial ordered

02

Material facts

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Appellant Counsel: Dana E. Sullivan

Craig Pope

Respondent Counsel: Mark Gruchy

Amounts and remedies

  • Case Number: 39,817
  • Judges Count: 9

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment Rendered March 21, 2022

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Crown argued the trial judge's instructions were legally adequate and that the conviction for second degree murder should stand.
Respondent
The respondent argued the jury was not properly instructed on manslaughter and on the distinction of intent between murder and manslaughter, warranting quashing the conviction and ordering a new trial.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on jury charges

    Trial judges must adequately instruct juries on included offences and clearly explain the mental elements that distinguish murder from manslaughter.

  2. 02

    Appellate review principles in criminal law

    An appellate court may order a new trial where an instructional defect could have affected the verdict.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The majority concluded that the trial judge failed to explain the distinction between murder and manslaughter with sufficient clarity, particularly regarding intent, and that the instructional error could have affected the verdict; accordingly the conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

Obiter and limits

  • There was a four-justice dissent that would have allowed the Crown's appeal, finding the instructions sufficient on the elements of manslaughter.
  • Comments emphasize the need for clarity when instructing juries about mens rea distinctions between homicide offences.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction for second degree murder quashed; new trial ordered.

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction quashed
  • New trial ordered

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of Canada · 21 March 2022

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· 21 March 2022

2022 SCC 8

R. v. Pope Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2022-03-21 Neutral citation 2022 SCC 8 Report [2022] 1 SCR 69 Case number 39817 Judges Wagner, Richard; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell; Rowe, Malcolm; Martin, Sheilah; Kasirer, Nicholas; Jamal, Mahmud On appeal from Newfoundland and Labrador Notes SCC Case Information Decision Content

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Pope, 2022 SCC 8, [2022] 1 S.C.R. 69 Appeal Heard: March 21, 2022 Judgment Rendered: March 21, 2022 Docket: 39817 Between: Her Majesty The Queen Appellant and Craig Pope Respondent Coram: Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ. Judgment Read By: (paras. 1 to 2) Wagner C.J. Majority: Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Brown, Kasirer and Jamal JJ. Dissent: Wagner C.J. and Côté, Rowe and Martin JJ. Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v. Craig Pope Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Pope 2022 SCC 8 File No.: 39817. 2022: March 21. Present: Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for newfoundland and labrador Criminal law — Charge to jury — Manslaughter — Accused charged with second degree murder — Trial judge instructing jury on second degree murder and included offence of manslaughter — Jury finding accused guilty of second degree murder — Accused appealing conviction on basis that jury not properly instructed on manslaughter — Majority of Court of Appeal holding that trial judge erred by failing to properly instruct jury on manslaughter as he did not explain difference between murder and manslaughter with sufficient clarity, particularly regarding the question of intent — Majority quashing conviction and ordering new trial —

Dissenting judge finding that trial judge’s instructions sufficient on elements of manslaughter — Order for new trial upheld. APPEAL from a judgment of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal (Welsh, Goodridge and Butler JJ.A.), 2021 NLCA 47, 74 C.R. (7th) 1, 466 D.L.R. (4th) 640, [2021] N.J. No. 234 (QL), 2021 CarswellNfld 287 (WL), quashing the conviction of the accused for second degree murder and ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed, Wagner C.J. and Côté, Rowe and Martin JJ. dissenting. Dana E. Sullivan, for the appellant. Mark Gruchy, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [1] The Chief Justice — A majority of this Court, made of Justice Moldaver, Justice Karakatsanis, Justice Brown, Justice Kasirer and Justice Jamal, would dismiss the appeal, essentially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal, whereas myself, Justice Côté, Justice Rowe and Justice Martin would allow the appeal, essentially for the reasons of Justice Goodridge. [2] The appeal is therefore dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Special Prosecutions Office, St. John’s. Solicitor for the respondent: Newfoundland and Labrador Legal Aid Commission, St. John’s.

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.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.