Supreme Court


Defences

PROVOCATION
No evidence existed that deceased’s wrongful act or insult was sudden

Accused charged with second degree murder. Accused shot acquaintance in back and head. Accused claimed in police confession that deceased had been extorting him and threatening his mother for years. Accused brought loaded handgun to confront deceased about extortion. Accused said that he shot deceased in rage after deceased made veiled threat against his mother. Jury rejected defence of provocation and convicted accused. Majority of Court of Appeal dismissed accused’s argument that jury instructions on provocation were deficient. Appeal dismissed. Defence of provocation had no air of reality. No evidence existed that deceased’s wrongful act or insult was sudden.

R. v. Pappas (Oct. 25, 2013, S.C.C., McLachlin C.J.C., Fish J., Abella J., Rothstein J., Cromwell J., Moldaver J., and Wagner J., File No. 34951) Decision at 102 W.C.B. (2d) 219 was affirmed. 109 W.C.B. (2d) 555.

cover image

DIGITAL EDITION

Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll


Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?
RESULTS ❯