More on the W.(D) Instruction
The principles underlying W.(D.) are not confined to only
those cases where an accused testifies and his or her evidence conflicts with that
of Crown witnesses. Rather—
“Where, on a vital issue, there are
credibility findings to be made between conflicting evidence called by the
defence or arising out of evidence favourable to the defence in the Crown’s
case, the trial judge must relate the concept of reasonable doubt to those
credibility findings.”
R. v. B.D., 2011
ONCA 51, 273 O.A.C. 241, at para 114.
The purpose of a W.(D.) instruction is to bring home
to the jury that, in the face of conflicting evidence, the paramount question
for their determination is whether, on the whole of the evidence, the jury is
left with a reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt.
R. v. C.L.Y.,
2008 SCC 2, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 5, at para. 6, citing R.
v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345, at para. 361.
For this reason, the analytical steps outlined
in W.(D.) are intended to ensure that
the jury remains focused on the principle of reasonable doubt.
C.L.Y., at para. 6.
In some cases it may constitute
an error for the trial judge to confine the W.(D.)
instruction to the accused’s testimony.
R. v. Kirlew, 2017 ONCA 171, at para.
19.
Comments
Post a Comment