Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

R. v. Escobar-Benavidez

Collection Supreme Court Judgments
Date 2005-11-18
Neutral citation 2005 SCC 68
Report [2005] 3 SCR 386
Case number 30917
Judges McLachlin, Beverley; Bastarache, Michel; LeBel, Louis; Deschamps, Marie; Fish, Morris J.; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Charron, Louise
On appeal from British Columbia
Subjects Criminal law
Notes SCC Case Information: 30917

Decision Content

 

                                                 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

 

 

Citation:  R. v. Escobar‑Benavidez, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 386, 2005 SCC 68

 

Date:  20051118

Docket:  30917

 

Between:

 

Elidio Donato Escobar‑Benavidez

Appellant

and

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

 

Coram:  McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.

 

 

Reasons for judgment:

(paras. 1 to 3)

 

 

 

McLachlin C.J. (Bastarache, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ. concurring)

 

______________________________

R. v. Escobar‑Benavidez, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 386, 2005 SCC 68

 

Elidio Donato Escobar‑Benavidez                                                                   Appellant

 

v.

 

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                               Respondent

 

Indexed as:  R. v. Escobar‑Benavidez

 

Neutral citation:  2005 SCC 68.

 

File No.:  30917.

 

2005:  November 18.

 

Present:  McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

 

Criminal law — Charge to jury — Criminal record of accused — Post‑offence conduct.

 

Statutes and Regulations Cited

 

Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46 , s. 686(1) (b)(iii).

 

APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Southin, Prowse and Oppal JJ.A.) (2005), 211 B.C.A.C. 260, 349 W.A.C. 260, 196 C.C.C. (3d) 459, [2005] B.C.J. No. 752 (QL), 2005 BCCA 211, upholding the accused’s conviction for second degree murder.  Appeal dismissed.

 

Timothy J. Russell, for the appellant.

 

Fred Tischler, for the respondent.

 

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

 

1                                   The Chief Justice — We would all dismiss the appeal.  The recharge on the criminal record, read in context, could not have misled the jury.  Moreover, we conclude that the trial judge did not err in failing to instruct the jury on post‑offence conduct which, we note, was not requested.

 

2                                   Absent error, there is no need to consider the issue of the application of s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46 .

 

3                                   The appeal is dismissed and the verdict of the jury is confirmed.

 

Judgment accordingly.

 

Solicitors for the appellant:  McCullough Parsons Blazina, Victoria.

 

Solicitor for the respondent:  Ministry of Attorney General, Vancouver.

 

 

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.