COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) –and- DARRON COLIN ST. PIERRE (Appellant)
BEFORE:
LABROSSE, LASKIN AND ARMSTRONG JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Robert Sheppard
for the appellant
Lucy Cecchetto
for the respondent
HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY:
June 8, 2006
On appeal from the convictions entered on March 11, 2005 by Justice Heeney of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1The appellant was convicted, by a court composed of a judge and jury, of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching (x2) and sexual assault of the complainant, his stepson. It was alleged that the appellant engaged in sexual activities with the complainant when he was 13 years of age, and continued to do so for a period of two years. The sexual activities included fondling, masturbation and fellatio.
2The appellant was acquitted of inviting the complainant to sexually touch Jerry Stirling, a friend of the appellant.
3The appellant denied any misconduct.
4The appellant submits that the charge to the jury was in error on the burden of proof. He relies on an isolated passage from the charge, which he contends placed a burden on the defence to raise a reasonable doubt.
5In our view, the jury was properly instructed on the burden of proof. The passage relied on by the appellant is taken out of context. The charge made it clear that there was no burden on the accused to raise a reasonable doubt. It correctly complied with the instructions in R. v. W.(D). (1991), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 397 (S.C.C.) and R. v. Lifchus (1997), 118 C.C.C. (3d) 1.
6Defence counsel obviously agreed, and raised no objection to the charge.
7The appellant also submits that his acquittal for the charge of invitation to sexual touching of Jerry Stirling is inconsistent with the verdicts of guilty and requires a new trial.
8In our view, there is a rational basis to reconcile the guilty verdicts and the acquittal.
9The trial judge cautioned the jury that it would be dangerous to accept the testimony of the complainant on this issue because it was different from a sworn statement he had previously given. That may have caused the jury to have a reasonable doubt on that issue.
10The guilty verdicts are not unreasonable and are fully supported by the evidence.
11The appeal is accordingly dismissed.