R.+v.+Ly

(a) Instructing the jury that certain of the characteristics of the appellant, such as his background, may not be taken into account on the issue whether an ordinary person would have been provoked by the victim's words and conduct; (b) Omitting to tell the jury that anger is an indicia of provocation and omitting to tell the jury that a long series of incidents leading up to the one in question should be looked at in deciding whether or not an ordinary person would lose his power of self-control; (c) In failing to direct the jury properly with respect to the evidence and the law as to acting "on the sudden and before there was time for his passion to cool". person of self-control. Not wrong for jury to be aware of cultural background of appellant for second part of test [did appellant act instinctively before passion “cooled”. Provocation here was wife telling husband her late return home was “none of his business”. Fact of husband’s cultural background might have been relevant had an ethnic slur been involved, but there was none.
 * R v. Ly**:
 * Facts**: Appellant born and raised in Vietnam. Emigrated to Canada. Had come to believe that woman he was living with was no longer faithful to him, and he brought this up on various occasions. Common law wife denied that anything was going on. Appellant re-stated his concerns and then stated that he wanted to kill himself. Common law wife encouraged him to do so, and he ended up hospitalized. The night of the murder, the wife was expected home at 6pm but did not arrive until 2am. When she appeared, husband claimed he saw a female shadow behind her instructing him to kill her. He strangled her, wrote two notes saying that it was because of her adultery, and then took pills. At trial, said wife’s actions caused him to lose face within the Vietnamese community.
 * History**: In instructing jury, judge highlighted that the point of comparison was the “ordinary person not the accused himself or his background”.
 * Issues:** Question of whether appellant was wrongfully convicted based on judge’s failure to correctly inform jury on issue of provocation. Did the trial judge err in:
 * Ratio**: Not wrong for jury to use ordinary man standard for first part of test [ whether a homicide which would otherwise be murder should be reduced to manslaughter by reason of provocation is whether the wrongful act or insult received by the accused from the deceased on the evening in question was sufficient to deprive an ordinary
 * Reasoning**:
 * Jury took into account all of the subjective elements in the second stage of the test.