DATE: 20061110
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. SHELDON WYNTER (Appellant)
BEFORE:
MCMURTRY C.J.O., DOHERTY and MACPHERSON JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Catherine Glaister for the appellant
Paul G. McDermott for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED:
November 8, 2006
On appeal from the convictions entered by Justice Foster of the Ontario Court of Justice dated October 20, 2004.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
1The reasons for judgment meet the Sheppard requirements. They demonstrate an appreciation of the evidence and set out the inferences drawn from the evidence. It is implicit that the trial judge considered all of the evidence he referred to in his summary when drawing his inferences.
2The verdicts are not unreasonable. There was ample evidence that the appellant was the person seen seven hours after the accident and flight conducting a careful search of the areas where the gun and vest were found immediately after the accident and ensuing chase. It was reasonable to infer that the person who was searching those areas had discarded the relevant items during the chase.
3It was also reasonable to infer that the items were discarded by the driver of the vehicle who fled after he crashed his car and followed a route that passed the locations where the gun and bullet-proof vest were found immediately after the flight.
4The evidence of the girlfriend had little probative value. It did not figure prominently in the trial judge’s analysis. There was no objection to the evidence and we see no error in the trial judge’s treatment of the evidence.
5The trial judge did not reverse the burden of proof. He simply noted the absence of any explanation in the evidence that could contradict what he saw as the reasonable inference to be drawn.
6The appeal is dismissed.