Court of Appeal

CASE NO.                                                     VOL. NO.                                                       PAGE

LAUCHLIN RONALD MACDONALD         - and -            HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Appellant                                                                                Respondent

C.A.C. No. 143210                                       Halifax                                    CHIPMAN, J.A.

                                         [Cite as: R. v. MacDonald, 2000 NSCA 60]

APPEAL HEARD:                           December 7, 1999

JUDGMENT DELIVERED:           May 12, 2000

SUBJECT:                           CRIMINAL LAW - FIRST DEGREE MURDER - CORRECTNESS OF VARIOUS RULINGS BY TRIAL JUDGE AND INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY

SUMMARY:                          The appellant was convicted by a jury in Supreme Court on a charge of first degree murder.  The evidence substantially implicating him in the crime came from two witnesses, an eyewitness and a jailhouse informant.  The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal raising a number of grounds of appeal.

ISSUES:                                (1)       Whether the trial judge erred in not ordering production of records of a safe house respecting the eyewitness, and whether the correct procedure was followed.

(2)       Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the preliminary inquiry evidence and a video statement of a person who did not testify at the trial.

(3)       Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence of a jailhouse informant.

(4)       Whether the trial judge erred in allowing the jury to deliberate in relation to first degree murder, there being insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation.

(5)       Whether the trial judge erred in not directing the jury in relation to evidence of alcohol and drug use by the appellant as it may relate to planning and deliberation and manslaughter.

(6)       Whether the trial judge erred in his direction to the jury respecting inconsistencies in the evidence of the eyewitness, in not adequately relating the evidence to the theory of the defence, in failing to give any or an adequate Vetrovec warning with respect to the testimony of the eyewitness and the jailhouse informant, and in prohibiting counsel from citing law to the jury.

RESULT:                              The Court of Appeal, after reviewing the evidence and examining the grounds of appeal, rejected all of them and dismissed the appeal.  Although not raised in the notice of appeal as amended, the reasonableness of the jury’s verdict was challenged on oral argument.  The court found that the verdict of the jury was a reasonable one.  The appeal was dismissed.