2 total
Mr. Big confessions remained admissible despite brief police discouragement of consulting counsel.
The appellant appealed convictions for first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and arson arising from a contract killing proved in significant part through confessions obtained in a Mr. Big operation.
He argued that undercover officers improperly discouraged him from consulting his lawyer before meeting a senior undercover operative, and that this conduct amounted to an abuse of process requiring exclusion of his statements.
The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge was entitled to find the confessions reliable and admissible under the Hart framework, and that the brief exchange about counsel did not coerce the appellant or otherwise undermine the integrity of the justice system.
The appeal was dismissed.
Appeal from first-degree murder conviction dismissed; claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and jury charge errors rejected.
The appellant appealed his convictions for the first-degree murder of his two-year-old son and the aggravated assault of his common-law spouse.
He argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer failed to cross-examine Crown witnesses to show he did not commit the offences.
The Court of Appeal found the evidence of guilt overwhelming and trial counsel's tactical decisions reasonable.
The court also dismissed grounds of appeal relating to the trial judge's jury instructions on after-the-fact conduct and the burden of proof.
The appeal from conviction was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was quashed.
