Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2024-07-15 Docket: C69410

Before: Lauwers, Trotter and Paciocco JJ.A.

Between: His Majesty the King Respondent

And: Daniella Marciano Appellant

Counsel: Daniella Marciano, acting in person Myles Anevich, appearing as duty counsel Nicholas Hay, for the respondent

Heard: July 9, 2024

On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Antonio Di Zio of the Ontario Court of Justice on November 5, 2019.

Reasons for Decision

[1] Daniella Marciano was convicted after trial of possession of stolen goods relating to a motor vehicle. At the end of oral argument, we dismissed her appeal for reasons to follow. These are our reasons.

[2] Ms. Marciano was self-represented at trial. On a number of occasions, she attempted to give evidence when questioning witnesses by making factual assertions that had not been presented in evidence. On other occasions she attempted to confront witnesses with the content of documentation, not previously admitted into evidence, that they could not authenticate. She ultimately chose not to testify or to present those documents into evidence. Therefore, some of the information she had referred to during trial never became part of the record on which her guilt was adjudicated. She argues that it is evident from these instances that she did not understand how evidence was to be presented. She argues that, in light of this, the trial judge was obliged to ensure that understanding, which he failed to do.

[3] We did not accept this submission because we are satisfied that the trial judge adequately explained how evidence is to be presented, and fully discharged his obligation of providing a fair trial to this unrepresented accused person. At the outset of the trial, he explained how evidence is to be presented. When Ms. Marciano attempted to present information improperly, he interjected with appropriate explanations, and when she indicated that she did not want to testify, he took steps to ensure that she understood the implications of not doing so.

[4] Without commenting on the role that her own subjective understanding played in her right to a fair trial, we note that Ms. Marciano participated in submissions before us, amply demonstrating her intelligence and her ability to understand the trial process. She has not persuaded us that she was confused at trial about how to defend herself, and that the decisions she made during trial were not tactical. The trial judge had the benefit of being present during the relevant exchanges and was in a position to assess her comprehension. It is evident that he was satisfied that she understood what he was saying. The approach he took was patient and reasonable.

[5] We therefore rejected this ground of appeal.

[6] Ms. Marciano offered a number of other grounds of appeal in her inmate Notice of Appeal and made further submissions before us about the merits of her case. We have considered these other grounds of appeal and submissions and have concluded that none of them provides a basis for allowing the appeal.

[7] We therefore dismissed the appeal.

“P. Lauwers J.A.”

“Gary Trotter J.A.”

“David M. Paciocco J.A.”