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 - Murder - Jury charge - Whether the trial judge erred in encouraging the jury to consider the evidence of different groupings of witnesses separately - Whether the trial judge erred when he did not explain to the jury that manslaughter was a possible verdict even if the jury found him to be a party to the deaths - Whether the trial judge erred when he did not give the Applicant the benefit of a separate or specific charge concerning those aspects of the evidence and the law, as each of those related specifically to his defence.

Dubois was convicted, after trial by judge and jury, of the second degree murder of Arthur Kohler and the first degree murder of Edna Kohler. He was tried along with co-accused Joshua Hein. The deaths occurred in the context of a home invasion for the purpose of robbery. According to the evidence, Dubois and four others went to the home of the deceased couple intending to rob them. Dubois, Hein and two others entered the house while the other waited. The intention, if the home was occupied, was to knock out and restrain the occupants. The deceased couple were both home and in the course of the robbery Arthur Kohler suffered two blows, both to his head. The testimony was that he would have been immediately immobilized, and while he might possibly have lived for a short period, it was quite possible he died immediately. Mrs. Kohler was also assaulted, having severe head wounds which included a fractured skull and consequent brain damage. She also had broken ribs, a fractured arm and bruising to her face and body. When the son of the deceased found his parents several days later, Edna Kohler was unconscious but still alive. She remained in a coma for two weeks, emerged from the coma, and then died suddenly approximately one month after the incident. There was substantial forensic evidence on items in the home and in the possession of the accused connecting Dubois to the scene of the crime. There was also testimony from other participants in the offence, who had already entered pleas to various offences, from persons present before the group left to commit the crime and those present when the group returned and testimony from Hein, all placing Dubois in the home during the progress of the robbery. Dubois did not testify. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal only to the extent of altering the time which must be served for the conviction for second degree murder before parole application can be made from 25 years to 15 years. In all other respects, the appeal was dismissed.