Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Jones, 2014 ONCA 246

Date: 20140331

Docket: C55251

Before: Rosenberg, Cronk and Juriansz JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Christopher Everton Jones

Appellant

Counsel:

Boris Bytensky, for the appellant

Sarah Shaikh, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: March 26, 2014

On appeal from the conviction entered on December 12, 2011 by Justice Gisele M. Miller of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant was found guilty of one count of trafficking in cocaine. He appeals from his conviction.

[2] The central issue at trial was the identity of the man who sold drugs to two undercover police officers while they were seated in an unmarked vehicle. As refined during oral argument, the appellant advances two main grounds of appeal. He submits that the trial judge erred in her assessment of the identification evidence: (1) by failing to take account of the inherent and well-established frailties of eyewitness testimony; and (2) by failing to consider evidence that the appellant says undercuts the reliability of the police identification of him as the perpetrator.

[3] We do not accept these arguments.

[4] In the particular circumstances of this case, the trial judge was not obliged to explicitly mention the frailties of eyewitness identification. The trial judge reviewed the identification evidence of the involved police officers, in detail, and provided clear reasons for her acceptance of it. As she pointed out, two police witnesses identified the appellant as the involved drug dealer based on their observations of him during a close encounter under well-lit circumstances when the drug dealer’s physical attributes – including, importantly, a distinctive facial scar and voice pattern – were readily detectable.

[5] Moreover, a third police officer observed the drug dealer shortly after the drug buy and saw the same man again the next day at a location that was associated with the appellant. He testified that the man he saw on both occasions was the same person, namely, the appellant.

[6] The trial judge accepted this evidence, as she was entitled to do. It established the identity of the appellant as the person involved in the controlled drug buy.

[7] As to the appellant’s second argument, the appellant contends that the delay between the first and second police encounters with the appellant tainted the ability of the involved police officers to reliably identify the appellant. He also says that there is evidence here of police predisposition to arrest him based on their prior dealings with him, which fatally infects the reliability of their identification of him as the drug dealer.

[8] We disagree. The trial judge considered and rejected these contentions. She focused, correctly in our view, on the fact that the identification evidence at issue consisted of two police officers’ clear view of a drug dealer’s face when he was in close proximity to their vehicle and when a scar below the drug dealer’s left eye was plainly visible. Their identification of the appellant as the involved drug dealer was reinforced by the observations of the third police officer on the day of the drug buy and the following day. This evidence, collectively, amply supported the trial judge’s conclusion that the appellant was the person involved in the drug buy.

[9] Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.

“M. Rosenberg J.A.”

“E.A. Cronk J.A.”

“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”