Elise Sari Nakelsky

Three appellants convicted of first and second degree murder appealed their convictions.

Two were convicted of first degree murder and one of second degree murder.

The appellants challenged the verdicts as inconsistent and unreasonable, and raised multiple grounds of appeal relating to the trial judge's jury charge, including issues regarding post-offence conduct instructions, circumstantial evidence instructions, and the treatment of various pieces of evidence.

The Crown cross-appealed on the acquittal of one appellant on first degree murder.

The appellate court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the verdicts neither inconsistent nor unreasonable, and that the trial judge committed no errors in her charge to the jury.

An anesthesiologist was convicted at trial of 21 counts of sexual assault against female patients who underwent surgery under conscious sedation at a hospital.

The appellant appealed on three grounds: (1) that the trial judge erred in finding he had the opportunity to commit the offences; (2) that the trial judge mishandled expert evidence regarding the effects of anesthetics on patient awareness and memory, including evidence about anesthetic-induced hallucinations and the bite-down reflex; and (3) that the trial judge improperly relied on evidence of similar acts to establish guilt on individual counts.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge's factual findings were grounded in evidence, free from misapprehension, and entitled to deference.

The court emphasized that the appellant had exclusive opportunity to commit the offences, that the trial judge properly assessed conflicting expert evidence, and that evidence of similar acts was properly used as circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Appeal from conviction and sentence.

The appellant was convicted of attempted kidnapping, attempted aggravated sexual assault, attempted murder, break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence, and possession of child pornography.

He was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment.

The appellant appealed the convictions for attempted kidnapping and attempted aggravated sexual assault arising from an August 29, 2005 incident, as well as the dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding that the appellant's actions constituted attempts beyond mere preparation and that all criteria for dangerous offender designation were satisfied.

The applicant, convicted of first degree murder and committing an indignity to a human body, applied for the appointment of publicly-funded appellate counsel under s. 684(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded the applicant lacked means to retain private counsel.

The court found the applicant had arguable grounds of appeal challenging the trial judge's pre-trial rulings on the admissibility of evidence regarding the applicant's cannibalistic ideation, including statements to a psychiatric nurse and rap lyrics.

The court determined the applicant could not effectively argue the complex appeal without counsel assistance.

The appointment was granted on a limited basis, restricted to addressing the effects of the pre-trial rulings on trial fairness, excluding issues of post-offence conduct and ineffective assistance of counsel.