COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. JASON VENNE (Applicant/Appellant)
BEFORE:
DOHERTY, LASKIN and ARMSTRONG JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Victor Giourgas
for the appellant
John Neander
for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED:
December 8, 2004
On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Speyer of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury, dated April 9, 2003.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
1The trial judge gave a detailed even-handed instruction on the evidence relevant to the issue of intent. The instruction canvassed all of the evidentiary considerations relied on by the appellant in support of his contention that a “rolled up” charge on the issue of intent was necessary. The trial judge effectively gave a “rolled up” charge.
2The trial judge did not err in failing to instruct the jury that they could only rely on the appellant’s admission, allegedly made to his girlfriend, if they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that it was made and was true. That admission was a piece of evidence to be considered along with the rest of the evidence in deciding whether the Crown had met its ultimate burden of proof. The trial judge reviewed this evidence, including the girlfriend’s cross-examination where she acknowledged that the admission may not have been made by the appellant.
3The trial judge mistakenly referred to evidence from the voir dire in his review of the evidence of the main Crown witness. The evidence was not repeated in the trial proper. No objection was taken to this misstatement of the evidence. We are satisfied that the error did not create a serious risk that the jury could be misled. Nor did it undermine the reliability of the verdicts.
4The appeal is dismissed.