3 total
Crown's appeal restored sexual assault conviction set aside by Court of Appeal.
The appellant Crown appealed a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal which had set aside the respondent's sexual assault conviction and ordered a new trial.
The Court of Appeal majority had found the trial judge erred by using text messages exchanged between the complainant and the accused as prior consistent statements to corroborate the complainant's evidence, by failing to hold a voir dire to determine their relevance, and in the approach to the W.(D.) analysis.
The Supreme Court, by majority, allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, adopting the reasons of the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeal.
Justices Côté and Brown dissented and would have dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons of the Court of Appeal majority.
Directed verdict entered where circumstantial identification evidence was too generic to support conviction.
During a criminal trial for multiple convenience store robberies, the defence brought a motion for a directed verdict after the close of the Crown’s case regarding two of the alleged robberies.
The Crown relied entirely on circumstantial evidence linking the accused to surveillance footage and clothing similar to items worn by a robber.
The court applied the directed verdict test from R. v. Monteleone and the circumstantial evidence principles from R. v. Arcuri.
The judge held that the similarities in clothing and general appearance were too generic and common to support a reasonable inference that the accused was the perpetrator.
Directed verdicts of not guilty were entered on the two counts.
Conviction and sentence appeal dismissed; trial judge's credibility findings and clarifying questions were proper.
The appellant appealed his convictions for uttering a threat to cause death, criminal harassment, and failing to comply with an undertaking, as well as his global sentence of seven months' incarceration.
He argued the verdict was unreasonable due to flawed credibility assessments and that the trial judge created an appearance of bias by extensively questioning witnesses.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the credibility assessments were open to the trial judge and the questioning was merely to clarify testimony from unsophisticated witnesses.
The sentence was also upheld as fit.
