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.

Charter - Criminal - Criminal law - Charge to the jury - Identification - Conflicting testimony as to whether the accused was involved in an incident before the night of the murder - Crown theory was that the murder was retaliation for the previous incident - Trial judge failed to charge the jury about the testimony that the accused was not involved in the previous incident - Trial judge failed to relate that evidence to the issue of identity or to the defence theory in relation to causation - Court of Appeal characterized error as a "serious error" and a "serious defect in the charge" - Court of Appeal found that the error had been cured by reading back the witness' evidence in response to a question from the jury - Whether that could cure the error - Whether the trial judge's failure to charge the jury in accordance with R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, in relation to that witness' evidence compounded the "serious error" or "serious defect in the charge" - Whether that failure compromises the trial judge's role as guardian of a fair trial under s. 11(d) of the Charter.

Curran was charged with first-degree murder of an acquaintance. The Crown's theory was that the murder was retaliation for an unsatisfactory division of the proceeds of a break and enter at a jewellery store. The deceased's son identified Curran as the man involved in a dispute about the jewellery, which had culminated in a Mexican stand-off and a threat, and as the murderer. A neighbour of the deceased who had witnessed the stand-off testified that Curran was not the person involved in that dispute. Early in his charge to the jury, the trial judge reviewed some of the neighbour's testimony, but he did not mention the direct conflict between that testimony and the deceased's son's testimony with respect to the identity of the man in the stand-off. Defence counsel objected to the omission, with Crown counsel's concurrence. The trial judge did not charge the jury according to the instructions given in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 752. Before the trial judge recharged to cure the former defect, the jury asked two questions which raised similar issues. The trial judge found that, in answering those questions, he had covered the same ground as the planned recharge was to cover, so he did not given the planned recharge.

The jury convicted Curran of first degree murder, and he was sentenced to the mandatory term of life imprisonment without parole for 25 years. On appeal, Curran sought a new trial based on alleged improper evidentiary rulings and errors in the charge to the jury. The judgment was upheld.