COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – ALBERT DEAN CRAMPTON (Respondent)
BEFORE: WEILER, GOUDGE and BLAIR JJ.A.
COUNSEL: John Hale for the appellant
Grace Choi for the respondent
HEARD: October 7, 2004
RELEASED ORALLY: October 7, 2004
On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Roydon J. Kealey of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury, dated January 23, 2001.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1The appellant appeals against his conviction for sexual assault by a jury on January 23, 2001.
2The appellant submits that the jury’s verdict was compromised and should be set aside on two grounds: (1) They were not informed, until approximately five hours after they were charged, that they would be sequestered until they reached a verdict (2) The jury convicted the appellant of sexual assault in relation to the night of August 18 count, but acquitted him of a threatening charge that was alleged to have occurred during that encounter. They also acquitted him of a second count of sexual assault that allegedly occurred with the same complainant on the morning of August 19.
1In our opinion, there is no reasonable possibility that the trial judge’s omission to tell the jury they could be required to stay overnight coerced the jury or interfered with their right to deliberate free of extraneous pressures. The trial judge made it clear in his charge that they were not to put themselves under any pressure.
2The second argument is not advanced on the unreasonable verdict footing as the appellant concedes that there is some evidence to sustain the conviction. The suggestion of compromise is simply speculation in which we cannot engage. The verdicts were not irreconcilable.
3Although there was discussion about a W.(D.) instruction, in our view the jury would not have misunderstood the ultimate burden on the Crown.
4The appeal from conviction is therefore dismissed.
“Karen M. Weiler J.A.”
“S.T. Goudge J.A.”
“R.A. Blair J.A.”