Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2019-02-21 Docket: C63694 Judges: MacPherson, Sharpe and Tulloch JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Anthony Mannella Appellant

Counsel

Anthony Mannella, appearing in person Amy Ohler, duty counsel Andreea Baiasu, for the respondent

Heard: February 13, 2019

Appeal Information

On appeal from the conviction entered on August 24, 2016 and the sentence imposed on April 13, 2017 by Justice B. Fitzpatrick of the Superior Court of Justice.

Appeal Book Endorsement

[1] The appellant appeals his conviction for assault causing bodily harm. He advances three grounds of appeal.

[2] First, the appellant contends that the trial judge pre-judged his case because of his previous conviction, many years earlier, for murder in a domestic context.

[3] There is no basis for this submission. Although the previous domestic murder was mentioned at the trial, it was introduced by defence counsel in the cross-examination of the accused. The Crown referred to it in an entirely appropriate fashion in his cross-examination of the appellant. Moreover, it is clear from the trial judge's detailed reasons that he did not base the conviction, in any way, on the appellant's 'bad character' or criminal record.

[4] Second, the appellant submits that the trial judge erred by believing the complainant, especially since she stood to potentially gain financially (e.g. she could stay in the house) if the appellant was convicted.

[5] We disagree. The trial judge provided a careful analysis of the complainant's testimony. He was aware of and addressed inconsistencies in her testimony and a potential motive to lie. In the end, he believed her description of the appellant's attack on her. He was entitled to do so.

[6] Third, the appellant says that the trial judge did not take sufficient account of the absence of his DNA on the hammer and on the complainant.

[7] We do not accept this submission. The defence did not request forensic evidence and such evidence would not have been determinative against the backdrop of the complainant's testimony about the attack which the trial judge accepted.

[8] The conviction appeal is dismissed. The sentence appeal is dismissed as moot.