Case information

Criminal law — Appeals — Unreasonable verdict — Jury trial — Circumstantial evidence — Whether court of appeal can uphold verdict founded on circumstantial evidence without verifying whether trier of fact expressly excluded any other reasonable inference, as required by Villaroman — Whether standard of appellate review for reasonable verdicts must integrate strict methodological requirement of Villaroman in cases of circumstantial evidence, or whether current standard of deference unduly dilutes that requirement.

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.

The trial of Ms. Webb, charged with second degree murder, took place before a jury. The evidence was circumstantial. Several witnesses were heard and outlined the facts as follows: Ms. Webb went to a location where several people were gathered in an apartment; a fight broke out; Ms. Webb approached one of the people fighting and stabbed him in the abdomen multiple times; she was seen with a knife in the moments following the brawl; and one witness reported that she said: [translation] “I stabbed him for you!”. During the hours that followed, she washed herself and threw out the clothes that she was wearing. She admitted later that she had gotten rid of the knife, saying to a fellow inmate: [translation] “They’ll never find it; it’s well hidden”. The victim died the same day as a result of the stab wounds. Ms. Webb raised a hybrid defence of involuntary act and self-defence.

The trial judge dismissed a preliminary motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the grounds that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury, having been properly instructed in law, to find Ms. Webb guilty. The jury convicted Ms. Webb of second degree murder. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. In its view, the trial judge did not commit a reviewable error by dismissing the motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. Furthermore, it found that the review and reassessment of the evidence justified finding that the verdict of guilty to a charge of second degree murder was not unreasonable. It was a verdict that a properly instructed jury acting judicially could render, given the evidence presented to it.