section 662(2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Juries may find an accused not guilty of first degree murder, but guilty of second degree murder or attempted second degree murder if the evidence does not support the charge of first degree murder.

SECTION WORDING

662(2) For greater certainty and without limiting the generality of subsection (1), where a count charges first degree murder and the evidence does not prove first degree murder but proves second degree murder or an attempt to commit second degree murder, the jury may find the accused not guilty of first degree murder but guilty of second degree murder or an attempt to commit second degree murder, as the case may be.

EXPLANATION

Section 662(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides guidance to juries in cases where a defendant is charged with first degree murder, but the evidence presented at trial does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed first degree murder. The provision clarifies that in such cases, the jury may find the defendant guilty of second degree murder or attempted second degree murder, if that is what the evidence supports. This provision serves a number of important purposes. First, it ensures that the jury is not forced to return a verdict of not guilty simply because the evidence falls short of proving first degree murder, but may still support a conviction for a lesser included offense. This avoids the potential for a complete acquittal in cases where the defendant's culpability for the crime is clear, but the specific charges brought by the prosecution cannot be proven. Second, this provision reinforces the importance of the jury's role in determining guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented at trial. Juries are uniquely positioned to weigh the evidence, assess witness credibility, and consider all of the facts in the case. This provision encourages juries to fully consider the evidence and reach a just verdict, rather than feeling compelled to return a verdict of not guilty simply because the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Overall, Section 662(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada serves to ensure that justice is served in cases where the evidence falls short of proving first degree murder, but guilt for a lesser included offense is clear. By empowering juries to consider all of the evidence and reach a just verdict based on that evidence, this provision helps to maintain integrity and fairness in the criminal justice system.

COMMENTARY

Section 662(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that affirms the power of a jury to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused person based on the evidence presented to them. It establishes the principle that a judge may instruct the jury that, in cases where the Crown has charged an accused person with first-degree murder, but the evidence presented only supports a conviction for second-degree murder or attempted second-degree murder, the jury is legally able to return a conviction for the lesser charge. This section of the Criminal Code of Canada is important because it ensures that the jury has the power to make an accurate and fair determination of guilt or innocence based on the evidence before them. It also provides clarity for the judge in instructing the jury on the appropriate charges, which helps to ensure that the accused person is not found guilty of a more severe charge than is warranted by the evidence. Moreover, this provision also protects the rights of the accused person, as it reflects the principle of the presumption of innocence and the requirement that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It ensures that the prosecution is held to the highest standard of proof and that the accused person is not unfairly convicted due to overly aggressive or overreaching charges. This provision also demonstrates that the Canadian justice system is committed to ensuring that justice is served in a fair and consistent manner. By giving the jury the power to make decisions based on the evidence presented in court, the law is able to reflect the complexity of the criminal justice system and the inherent uncertainty of any criminal case. Finally, this provision is also important because it allows for flexibility in the application of the law. Not every case will fit neatly into pre-determined categories, and the law must allow for some degree of discretion and flexibility in order to ensure that justice is served. This provision helps to ensure that the law can adapt to the facts of the case and that the accused person is not unfairly punished due to a narrow interpretation of the law. In conclusion, section 662(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that affirms the power of the jury to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused person based on the evidence presented to them. It helps to ensure that justice is served in a fair and consistent manner, protects the rights of the accused person, and allows for flexibility in the application of the law.

STRATEGY

Section 662(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada plays a pivotal role in the Canadian legal system by allowing for flexibility in the judicial process when it comes to charging and sentencing offenders accused of murder. While this provision makes it possible to charge perpetrators with lesser offenses than first-degree murder in cases where there is insufficient evidence to prove the highest charge, it also presents critical strategic considerations that must be taken into account in order to secure a favorable verdict. One of the most important strategic considerations when dealing with Section 662(2) is the potential for the jury to be misled by the prosecution's case. If the Crown fails to make a convincing argument for the highest charge, this may lead jurors to doubt the strength of the evidence presented and result in a not-guilty verdict for all charges. To mitigate this risk, defence attorneys must be proactive in challenging the prosecution's case and highlighting any inconsistencies or gaps in the evidence presented. They must also communicate clearly with the jury about the various levels of homicide charges outlined in the Criminal Code and how the evidence presented applies to each. Another key consideration when dealing with Section 662(2) is the potential for plea bargaining. In cases where the evidence presented falls short of the criteria for first-degree murder, but is still strong enough to secure a conviction for second-degree murder or attempted murder, defence attorneys may consider negotiating with the Crown to reach a plea agreement. This can be advantageous as it reduces the risk of a not-guilty verdict and may result in a lesser sentence for the accused. However, plea bargains must be approached with caution, as they require a full admission of guilt and may not be in the best interest of all defendants. A third important strategic consideration when dealing with Section 662(2) is the potential for sentencing options. As the provision allows for the possibility of being found guilty of a lesser charge, this opens the door for judges to use their discretion when it comes to sentencing. In cases where the accused is found guilty of second-degree murder or attempted murder, judges may take into account factors such as the offender's criminal history, degree of culpability, and potential for rehabilitation when deciding on an appropriate sentence. Furthermore, defence attorneys may argue for mitigating factors such as mental health issues or extenuating circumstances that may warrant a reduced sentence. Overall, when dealing with Section 662(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, defence attorneys must exercise caution and approach each case strategically. They must pay close attention to the prosecution's case, consider the potential advantages and risks of plea bargaining, and advocate for appropriate and fair sentencing options. At the same time, it is essential to maintain an open line of communication with the accused, foster trust and transparency with the jury, and work diligently to represent their client's best interests in court.