Addison Nickoles Wakefield v. Her Majesty the Queen
(Alta.) (Criminal) (As of Right)
Judgments on applications for leave to appeal are rendered by the Court, but are not necessarily unanimous.
|2019-05-07||Transcript received, 26 pages|
|2019-04-26||Formal judgment sent to the registrar of the court of appeal and all parties|
|2019-04-26||Judgment on appeal and notice of deposit of judgment sent to all parties|
|2019-04-25||Judgment on the appeal rendered, Abe Mo Ka Row Mar,
The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 1601-0177-A, 2018 ABCA 360, dated November 1, 2018, was heard on April 25, 2019, and the Court on that day delivered the following judgment orally:
THE COURT — In order to uphold the conviction for second degree murder, the majority in the Court of Appeal had to be satisfied that the trial judge found that the appellant himself had stabbed the victim. The trial judge expressly refrained from making that finding. The majority considered the evidence and found that “the conclusion that it was the appellant who inflicted the stab wounds is well founded in the evidence” (para. 29). In doing so, the majority erred by making a finding of fact that the trial judge declined to make.
In addition, if the trial judge had concluded that it was the appellant who stabbed the victim, it is unclear whether he correctly analyzed the subjective mens rea requirement for second degree murder under s. 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. The trial judge failed to consider the crucial question of what the appellant subjectively knew and intended at the time of the stabbing (in accordance with R. v. Cooper,  1 S.C.R. 146, at p. 159). By accepting the trial judge’s statement of intent as sufficient to support the conviction for murder (para. 34), the majority further erred.
Both the appellant and the respondent advised the Court that they were content with our substituting a verdict of manslaughter instead of ordering a new trial. Accordingly, pursuant to s. 686(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code, the appeal is dismissed and a verdict of manslaughter is substituted, and the matter is remitted to the trial judge for sentencing.
|2019-04-25||Respondent's condensed book, (Book Form), 14 copies (Submitted in Court)||Her Majesty the Queen|
|2019-04-25||Appellant's condensed book, (Book Form), 14 copies (Submitted in Court)||Addison Nickoles Wakefield|
|2019-04-25||Hearing of the appeal, 2019-04-25, Abe Mo Ka Row Mar
|2019-04-12||Appeal perfected for hearing|
|2019-04-11||Notice of appearance, Karen B. Molle and Jennifer Ruttan will appear before the court. Ms. Molle will present oral arguments.||Addison Nickoles Wakefield|
|2019-04-10||Notice of appearance, (Letter Form), Brian R. Graff will appear before the court and will present oral arguments.||Her Majesty the Queen|
|2019-04-08||Respondent's record, (Book Form), Completed on: 2019-04-11||Her Majesty the Queen|
|2019-04-08||Certificate of counsel (attesting to record), (Letter Form)||Her Majesty the Queen|
|2019-04-08||Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form)||Her Majesty the Queen|
|2019-04-08||Respondent's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2019-04-11||Her Majesty the Queen|
|2019-03-04||Notice of hearing sent to parties|
|2019-02-26||Appeal hearing scheduled, 2019-04-25
|2019-02-11||Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form)||Addison Nickoles Wakefield|
|2019-02-11||Appellant's record, (Book Form), Completed on: 2019-02-11||Addison Nickoles Wakefield|
|2019-02-11||Appellant's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2019-02-11||Addison Nickoles Wakefield|
|2018-12-12||Letter advising the parties of tentative hearing date and filing deadlines (Notice of appeal – As of right)|
|2018-12-03||Letter acknowledging receipt of a notice of appeal, FILE OPENED ON 2018-12-03|
|2018-11-30||Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form)||Addison Nickoles Wakefield|
|2018-11-30||Notice of appeal, (Letter Form), Completed on: 2018-11-30||Addison Nickoles Wakefield|
- Date modified: