The jury instructions
 The trial judge instructed the jury on how to determine
whether the Crown had proven the mental element necessary to
make an unlawful killing murder. The relevant excerpt appears at
para. 41 of these reasons.
 Following those instructions, the trial judge directed the
jury on intoxication, explaining that evidence of consumption of
eight bottles of beer was something for the jury to consider, along
with the rest of the evidence that shed light on the appellant’s
state of mind at the time of the offence. The rest of the evidence
included the appellant’s words and conduct before, at the time
and after the stabbing.
 The trial judge did not include what has become the typical
“rolled up” instruction to the jury in his charge.
The arguments on appeal
 In this court, the appellant contends that the trial judge
erred in failing to include a “rolled up” charge in his final jury
instructions. The charge should have included references to the
evidence of intoxication and the provoking conduct of the
deceased, and pointed out to the jury that this evidence was relevant for them to consider in assessing whether the Crown had
proven the essential mental element beyond a reasonable doubt.
The words and conduct of the deceased, even if it did not
amount to provocation as it was then defined under s. 232(2),
may have produced in the appellant a state of excitement, anger
or disturbance such that he might not have contemplated the
consequences of his conduct. This, in turn, might raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the appellant considered or intended
the consequences of that conduct.
 The appellant says that it is well-settled in this province
that a jury trying a count of murder should be instructed to consider the cumulative effect of, among other things, evidence of alcohol consumption and of provocative words and conduct by the
deceased or others in deciding whether the mental element
required to make an unlawful killing murder has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt. Its omission is fatal to the validity of
 The respondent acknowledges the propriety of including a
“rolled up” charge in final instructions in appropriate cases. But
the instruction is usually given, the respondent says, where the
jury is charged on various discrete defences, justifications or
excuses. As for example, self-defence, intoxication and provocation. Even where the statutory partial defence of provocation