Case information

Criminal law — Jury — Inconsistent verdicts — What is the legal test an appellate court should apply to determine if verdicts are inconsistent — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in applying the test — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that the court could not consider the trial judge’s actual instructions to the jury when deciding if the verdicts were inconsistent — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by directing a verdict of acquittal.

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.

Mr. Napope was charged with robbery and manslaughter after four men forcibly entered the victim’s apartment to rob him of drugs and money. The victim was stabbed to death. There were two types of evidence that linked Mr. Napope to the crime: DNA evidence and one of the two eyewitnesses at the apartment identifying him. Mr. Napope testified that he had nothing to do with the robbery. He further testified that he had been assaulted, and robbed earlier in the evening by two men, one of whom was wearing a clown mask identical to a mask found in the victim’s apartment. Mr. Napope said he landed a blow on one of the people who attacked him but was knocked unconscious and was bleeding as a result of the altercation. After a trial by judge and jury, the jury found Mr. Napope guilty of robbery and acquitted him of manslaughter. The Court of Appeal allowed Mr. Napope’s robbery conviction appeal.