Court File and Parties
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20200507 DOCKET: C67956
Rouleau, Zarnett and Jamal JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen Respondent
and
Branden Bocchino Appellant
Counsel: Branden Bocchino, acting in person Nader R. Hasan, appearing as duty counsel Andrew Hotke, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: May 4, 2020 by teleconference
On appeal from the conviction entered on November 22, 2019 and the sentence imposed on January 16, 2020 by Justice Bruce G. Thomas of the Superior Court of Justice.
Reasons for Decision
[1]
Overview
The appellant appeals against his conviction and sentence for aggravated assault. He was found to have beaten Daniel Steingart, the partner of his girlfriend’s mother, with a baseball bat when the mother and Steingart came to his apartment after the appellant allegedly had a violent altercation with his girlfriend.
[2]
Fresh Evidence
The appellant seeks to admit fresh evidence consisting of a hospital report confirming that his fingers were broken, which he claims supports his argument of self-defence, an argument that the trial judge rejected. The trial judge had before him photographs of the appellant’s injuries and knew that his fingers were injured, but did not have the hospital report.
3The appellant alleged two altercations: the first on the roof of his apartment and the second in the parking lot. The appellant says that his fingers were broken during the first altercation on the roof when Steingart allegedly hit him with a metal bar, and the appellant responded by punching Steingart in the jaw. The appellant assaulted Steingart with the baseball bat during the second altercation in the parking lot. Steingart denied having a metal bar, and the trial judge found as a fact that Steingart did not have a weapon.
4The trial judge found that he did not need to resolve what happened on the roof because the assault for which the appellant was charged occurred during the second altercation. He found that after the first altercation the appellant emerged from the apartment with a baseball bat and escalated the conflict by approaching and then striking Steingart, and that these blows were not in response to any real or perceived threat to the appellant and were not reasonable in the circumstances.
[5]
Analysis and Disposition
In our view, even if the fresh evidence were admitted, it would not change the result because there was no basis for a claim of self-defence during the second altercation.
6For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
“Paul Rouleau J.A.”
“B. Zarnett J.A.”
“M. Jamal J.A.”