In a jury trial, the instructions that are given to a jury are crucial in order for a jury to reach a verdict. Instructions are so important that if there are any issues with them, an accused person may appeal the verdict and if successful, have a new trial. This is what happened in the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision of R . v. Williams , 2019 ONCA 846.

A jury trial is a different type of trial because the verdict of guilty or not guilty is not given by a judge but by 12 citizens or, peers of the accused, the jury. Because members of the jury (jurors) are not judges, but are ordinary individuals selected from the public with no legal training, they must be instructed on the applicable law before they reach a verdict. One of the trial judge’s job in a jury trial is to provide the jury with instructions on the law so they can they can apply the relevant legal principles. This is an important task that the trial judge has to fulfill because as indicated, jurors have no legal training.

A Recent Case

In the recent case of Williams , the trial judge did provide originally appropriate instructions. However, in her submissions, Crown counsel misstated the law on the required intent for murder and that misstatement impacted the jury’s understanding of the law on murder and the required intent for murder. The difficulties that the jury was dealing with became apparent through the questions that the jury had while deliberating.

At paragraphs 39 and 40 of Williams , the Court states:

[39]

Questions by the jury give the clearest possible indication of the particular problem the jury is confronting: R. v. S. (W.D.) , [1994] 3 S.C.R. 521, at p. 528. When the jury submits a question, it must be assumed that the jurors have forgotten the original instructions and will base their subsequent deliberations on the answer to the question: S. (W.D.) , at p. 531. The correctness of the original charge cannot excuse an error in the answer to the jury’s question: S. (W.D.) , at p. 530-31.

[40]

In this case the jury repeatedly received correct instructions in the main charge. But considering everything the jury was told, I conclude there is a real danger that the jury was not left with a proper understanding of the role of recklessness in the mens rea for murder and that subjective foresight of death was required.

Jury Questions

The case of Williams shows the importance of jury instructions and of the questions that the jury asks. Jury questions could be reflective of the issues that the jury is dealing with and also of their understanding of the applicable legal principles.