(Last revised November 2023)
(Read relevant part of indictment or count.)
1. that (NOA) caused (NOC)’s death;
2. that (NOA)’s caused (NOC)’s death by committing an unlawful act;
3. that (NOA) had the intent required for murder; and
4. that (NOA)’s murder of (NOC) was both planned and deliberate.
Unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown has proved all four of these essential elements, you must find (NOA) not guilty of first degree murder.
If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of all four of these essential elements, [and you have no reasonable doubt[2] after considering the defence(s) (specify defences) about which I will instruct you], you must find (NOA) guilty of first degree murder.
To prove that (NOA) caused (NOC)’s death, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (NOA)’s conduct contributed significantly to (NOC)’s death.[4] A person’s conduct may contribute significantly to another person’s death even though that conduct is not the sole or main cause of death. You must consider all the evidence concerning the cause of (NOC)’s death, including the expert evidence of (NOW),[5] in determining whether the Crown has proved that (NOA)'s conduct contributed significantly to (NOC)’s death. It is for you to decide.
(Review relevant evidence and relate to issue.)
Unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that (NOA) caused (NOC)’s death, you must find (NOA) not guilty. Your deliberations would be over.
If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that (NOA) caused (NOC)’s death, you must go on to the next question.
It is not always a crime to cause another person’s death. It is a crime, however, to cause the death of another person by an unlawful act.[6]
The unlawful act alleged in this case is (describe unlawful act).
(Set out the underlying offence and its essential elements, including any defences.)[7]
(Review relevant evidence and relate to issue.)
Unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that (NOA) committed the unlawful act of (specify offence), you must find (NOA) not guilty. Your deliberations would be over.
If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that (NOA) committed the unlawful act, you must go on to the next question.
To prove that (NOA) had the intent required for murder, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt one of two things, either:
1. that (NOA) meant to cause (NOC)’s death; or
2. that (NOA) meant to cause (NOC) bodily harm that s/he knew was likely[8] to cause his/her death and was reckless whether death ensued or not.
In other words, you must decide whether the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (NOA) meant to kill (NOC), or that (NOA) meant to cause (NOC) bodily harm that s/he knew was so dangerous and serious that s/he knew it was likely to kill (NOC) and proceeded despite his/her knowledge of that risk.
The Crown does not have to prove both. Nor do you all have to agree on the same intent, so long as each of you is satisfied that one or the other has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
To determine whether the Crown has proved that (NOA) had one of the intents required for murder, you must consider all the evidence, including the nature of the harm inflicted and anything said or done in the circumstances. You may take into account, as a matter of common sense, that a person usually knows what the predictable consequences of his or her actions are, and means to bring them about.[9] However, you are not required to draw that inference about (NOA). Indeed, you must not do so if, on the whole of the evidence, including (specify evidence of intoxication, mental disorder or other) you have a reasonable doubt whether (NOA) had the one of the intents required for murder. In particular, consider whether this evidence causes you to have a reasonable doubt whether (NOA) knew that (NOC) was likely to die. It is for you to decide.
(Review and relate relevant evidence to the issue.)[10]
Unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that (NOA) had the intent required for murder, you must find (NOA) not guilty of murder, but guilty of the included offence of manslaughter.
If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that (NOA) had the intent required for murder, you must go on to the next question.
To prove first degree murder, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only that (NOA) had the intent required for murder, but also that the murder was both planned and deliberate.[12] “Planning and deliberation” are not the same as “intention”. For example, a murder committed intentionally, but on a sudden impulse or without prior consideration, is not planned and deliberate.
It is the murder itself that must be both planned and deliberate, not something else that (NOA) did (e.g. the underlying offence, if there is one).
The words “planned” and “deliberate” do not mean the same thing.
“Planned” means a calculated scheme or design that has been carefully thought out, the nature and consequences of which have been considered and weighed.
The plan does not have to be complicated. It may be very simple. Consider the time it took to develop the plan, not how much or little time it took between developing it and carrying it out. One person may prepare a plan and carry it out immediately. Another person may prepare a plan and wait a while, even quite a while, to carry it out.
“Deliberate” means “considered, not impulsive”, “slow in deciding”.
It is for you to say whether the murder of (NOC) was both planned and deliberate. To decide this issue, you must consider all the evidence, including (specify evidence of intoxication, or mental illness short of a s. 16 defence of mental disorder, self-defence or provocation)[13] and anything said or done in the circumstances.
(Review relevant evidence and relate to issue.)
Unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder of (NOC) was both planned and deliberate, you must find (NOA) not guilty of first degree murder, but guilty of second degree murder.
If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder of (NOC) was both planned and deliberate, [and you have no reasonable doubt with respect to (specify defence)], you must find (NOA) guilty of first degree murder.
[1] Where identity is an issue, remember to include any further instructions that may be relevant (e.g. eyewitness identification, alibi, similar fact, etc.). Where date is an issue, the jury must be told that the Crown must prove that the offence occurred within the time frame indicated in the indictment. Where place is an issue, the jury must be told that the Crown must prove that some part of the offence occurred in the place indicated in the indictment.
Generally, the Crown must prove the date and place specified in the indictment. However, where there is a variation between the evidence and the indictment, refer to s. 601(4.1) of the Criminal Code and the jurisprudence following R. v. B. (G.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 3.
[2] This instruction will have to be modified where the accused has a legal burden of proof, such as mental disorder and non-insane automatism.
[3] Where the defence advanced relates to the accused’s participation in the killing, such as alibi or lack of proof of identity, or to the voluntary character of the accused’s conduct as, for example, non-mental disorder automatism, the applicable instruction should be included here. The instructions here relate to causation not participation.
[4] Following R. v. Nette, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 488, it would appear that this formulation of the general test of causation is not reversible. It expresses the central element of the test in R. v. Smithers, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 506, which stipulated that a cause should be “not insignificant.” The two formulations are equivalent. Thus Nette is regarded as affirming the standard in Smithers, but providing a positive alternative for expressing it. This interpretation is reinforced by the Court’s decision in R. v. Maybin, 2012 SCC 24, in which it confirmed that the correct test is found in Smithers and Nette. Note also that the Court stated:
Further, this Court emphasized that causation issues are case-specific and fact-driven. The choice of terminology to put to a jury is discretionary in the context of the circumstances of the case (Nette, at para. 72). Implicit in Nette then, is the recognition that different approaches may be helpful in assessing legal causation, depending upon the specific factual context (at para. 17).
If the facts of the case require it, you may have to include one or more of the following statements:
“There must not be anything that somebody else does later (or some other subsequent event) that results in (NOA)’s conduct no longer being a contributing cause of (NOC)’s death. If you find that (NOA)’s conduct contributed significantly to (NOC)’s death, it does not matter that proper or timely (medical) treatment might have saved (NOC)’s life. Nor does it matter that what (NOA) did only accelerated (NOC)’s death from some existing disease or condition.” You may also wish to refer to Criminal Code, ss. 224-228. In Nova Scotia, the Court of Appeal has prescribed a more extensive instruction on intervening cause which has not been applied in other provinces: See: R. v. Reid, [2003] NSCA 104, [2003] N.S.J. No. 360 (C.A.).
[5] Delete the reference to expert evidence if none has been given.
[6] The unlawful act could be a violation of either a provincial or a federal statute, but not an offence of absolute liability.
It is usually unnecessary in murder cases to include an instruction that the unlawful act must be objectively dangerous. Where this is an issue, include an instruction along the lines of Offence 222.5[5] (the second essential element of unlawful act manslaughter).
[7] It is incumbent upon the trial judge to instruct the jury on the law in respect of the underlying offence, including any defences that arise on the evidence. See: R. v. Gunning, 2005 SCC 27, at para. 35. However, instructions relating to any defences specific to murder (e.g., intoxication and provocation) should be given after the direction on the element of intent to murder.
[8] The word “likely” means “probably”. See: R. v. Nygaard and Schimmens, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1074, at 1089, (1989), 51 C.C.C. (3d) 417 (S.C.C.).
[9] This instruction is a plain-language expression of what in case law is referred to as the “common sense inference” that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his or her actions.
[10] According to R. v. Seymour, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 252, at pp. 263-4, where there is evidence suggesting that the accused may have been in an impaired or reduced mental state at the time of the killing, instructions about the “common sense inference” of intention should be immediately followed by a reference to any evidence that would tend to blunt or negate the inference.
In some cases it will be appropriate to give a “rolled-up” charge in which the cumulative effect of evidence relating to certain defences such as mental disorder, intoxication, self-defence and provocation, short of full defences, may still be considered in deciding whether the accused formed the requisite intent.
[11] Where the offence alleged is a contract killing, reference should be made to s. 231(3), either in addition or as an alternative to the instructions set out under this heading.
[12] Planning and deliberation applies to both intents to commit murder – ss. 229(a)(i) and (ii). See: R. v. Nygaard and Schimmens, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1074, (1989), 51 C.C.C. (3d) 489 (S.C.C.).
[13] Where there is evidence of intoxication, mental illness short of a s. 16 defence of mental disorder, self-defence and/or provocation, the jury must be instructed separately as to how this might affect planning and deliberation as well as intention. In particular, even if the jury finds intention proved beyond a reasonable doubt, intoxication or mental illness short of a s. 16 defence of mental disorder, self-defence and provocation may still give rise to a reasonable doubt regarding planning and deliberation: R. v. Jacquard, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314, at para. 30; R. v. Wallen, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 827, (1990), 54 C.C.C. (3d) 383 (S.C.C.).