Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2018-10-11 Docket: C64941
Judges: Simmons, Rouleau and Huscroft JJ.A.
Between
Her Majesty the Queen Respondent
and
Dante Merritt Appellant
Counsel
Andrew Faith, as duty counsel Dante Merritt, appearing in person Hannah Freeman, for the respondent
Heard: October 2, 2018
Appeal Book Endorsement
[1] On behalf of the appellant, duty counsel argues that in her charge to the jury, the trial judge erred in failing to sufficiently caution the jury that the items she listed as linking the appellant to a particular address were relevant only to his relationship with the passenger of the vehicle on the night in question and did not directly support his identification as the driver.
[2] We do not accept this submission. In her instructions, the trial judge clearly identified the matter she listed as being relevant to the appellant's link to the vehicle and the passenger. While it may have been preferable had the trial judge added additional cautions, no such cautions were requested. Nor, in our view, did the failure to provide them amount to misdirection or non-direction. On our review of the charge, the jury was sufficiently instructed on the issues of identification and circumstantial evidence. The conviction appeal is dismissed.
[3] The appellant has served the custodial portion of his sentence. The issue in this regard is moot. We see no basis on which to interfere with the length of the driving prohibition. Leave to appeal sentence is granted; the sentence appeal is dismissed.