CITATION: R. v. Bradley, 2007 ONCA 181
DATE: 20070316
DOCKET: C45006
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and STEVEN BRADLEY (Appellant)
BEFORE: ROSENBERG, GOUDGE and BLAIR JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Irwin Koziebrocki for the appellant
Greg Skerkowski for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED: March 14, 2007
On appeal from conviction and sentence imposed by Justice Roderick D. Clarke of the Ontario Court of Justice dated February 8, 2006.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] Crown counsel, not Mr. Skerkowski, should not have been permitted to cross-examine the appellant on statements made by the police that had not been proved voluntary and where there was no clear waiver of the need for a voir dire. Since the trial judge expressly relied on those statements to find against the appellant’s credibility, we cannot be satisfied that the verdict would necessarily have been the same. Accordingly there must be a new trial. However, to the extent that the verdict rested on the 24 bills found behind the clock in Mr. MacDonald’s home, we are of the view that the verdict to that extent was unreasonable. There was not sufficient evidence of control and we note that while the trial judge found the appellant had knowledge of those bills, he made no express finding of control nor did he articulate a basis for such a finding.
[2] In these unusual circumstances, the appeal is allowed, the convictions set aside, but given that the appellant has already served over one year of the sentence, a stay of proceedings is entered.