Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Criminal law - Whether it is wrong to instruct juries that incriminating statements may carry greater weight than self-serving, exculpatory statements on the basis that such instruction is prejudicial to the accused and invites reversal of the burden of proof.

Samuels was convicted of first-degree murder of his common law wife, Barbara Lanthier. He appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered. The Crown seeks leave to appeal and to have the conviction restored.

Samuels was charged with murder nearly 19 months after Lanthier's death. It was the Crown's theory that he planned Lanthier's killing to collect life insurance. The principal issue was whether Lanthier died as a result of an accident or whether Samuels had murdered her and staged an accident.

The trial judge charged the jury, in part, as follows:

.... In this case, the statements of the accused Samuels contain both admissions or confessions as well as excuses which tend to exonerate him. In the ordinary course of human behaviour, it often occurs that statements of an incriminating nature, such as admissions or confessions, are likely to be true, otherwise why say them? On the other hand, excuses for one's behaviour do not necessarily carry the same persuasive weight. ....
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in respect of the characterization of Samuels's statements as containing "confessions", "admissions" or "excuses". The balance of his charge did not rehabilitate this instruction, and this was not an appropriate case to apply the curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.