Court File and Parties
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Doherty, Laskin and Lang JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Jeffrey Ronald Guthro
Applicant (Appellant)
Counsel: Nicholas A. Xynnis, for the appellant Benita Wassenaar, for the respondent
Heard: February 1, 2010 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice H.R. McLean of the Superior Court of Justice dated September 28, 2005 and the sentence imposed on December 6, 2005.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
1We do not agree that trial counsel’s representation constituted ineffective assistance warranting a new trial. We think the appeal fails on the “prejudice” arm of the ineffective assistance of counsel test.
2Mr. Raven’s proposed evidence goes to two factual issues that are said to be crucial to the complainant’s evidence. On one of the points (the hot tub incident), Mr. Raven’s evidence was consistent with the complainant’s. On the other (the timing of the complainant’s break up with the former boyfriend), Mr. Raven’s evidence became equivocal on cross-examination. That evidence could not have affected the result at trial.
3The proposed cross-examination of the complainant on inconsistencies between her evidence and her statement could not reasonably have been expected to affect the result. She was consistent throughout that the events occurred when she was 16. This places the events in the first part of 2002. The fact that she said 2001 in her initial statement, while at the same time indicating she was 16 when the events occurred, is not the kind of inconsistency that could reasonably be expected to tip a credibility finding against the complainant.
4The appeal is dismissed.