Court of Appeal for Ontario
Re: Her Majesty the Queen (Respondent) – and – Lucio Pressutti (Appellant)
Before: Weiler, Laskin and Cronk JJ.A.
Counsel: Daniel Stein, for the appellant Jennifer Woollcombe, for the respondent
Heard: April 10, 2003
On appeal from the conviction imposed by Justice J. B. Webber of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 16, 1998.
Appeal Book Endorsement
1This appeal was restored to the list. There are three grounds of appeal raised with respect to the appellant’s conviction for robbery. The first ground of appeal relates to the issue of whether the trial judge’s charge to the jury was adequate on the issue of reasonable doubt. Although the charge did not comply with the suggested charge in R. v. Lifchus (1997), 118 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.), we are of the opinion that the jury could not have misunderstood their duty. Given the nature of the defence, alibi, the instruction on reasonable doubt given by the trial judge, the R. v. W(D) (1991), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 397 (S.C.C.) instruction with respect to the defence of alibi and defence counsel’s address to the jury, we are satisfied that the jury would not have misunderstood the standard of proof. This ground of appeal is dismissed.
2There is no merit to the second ground of appeal. Namely, that the trial judge improperly curtailed cross‑examination. The trial judge did not limit defence counsel’s right to make full answer and defence.
3The third ground of appeal was not pursued for the very good reason that any initial misimpression in the charge was cured by the charge on alibi.
4The appeal is dismissed.