Paul Calarco

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of his three-year-old niece.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by failing to give a limiting instruction regarding his false statement to the police and by admitting evidence of prior acts of abuse against the child.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no risk that the jury misused the false statement to infer intent, and holding that the prior abuse evidence was highly probative of animus and intent.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and corrupting morals, arguing that the trial judge gave inadequate reasons for treating the complainant's testimony differently across the charges and that the verdicts were unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge clearly explained his reasoning for acquitting on the sexual assault count while convicting on the others, and that there was ample evidence to support the convictions.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to two years less a day.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of an unregistered handgun.

The court held that the trial judge erred in principle by combining a custodial sentence and a conditional sentence where the resulting total effectively amounted to a penitentiary sentence exceeding two years less one day.

However, the court also held that blended custodial and conditional sentences are legally permissible for multiple offences where the total sentence does not exceed two years less one day and the statutory preconditions in s. 742.1(b) are met.

In light of fresh evidence showing successful rehabilitation efforts while incarcerated, the court reduced the conditional sentence on the drug offence to sixteen months less one day and left the remaining terms intact.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence following a jury trial for a sexual offence involving an alleged position of trust.

The court rejected challenges to the jury charge, including references to a non-existent letter, the instruction on position of trust, comments on the failure to testify, and the distinction between credibility and reliability.

The conviction appeal was dismissed because no prejudice was shown and the charge, read as a whole, was adequate.

The sentence appeal was allowed because the trial judge placed undue emphasis on the criminal record and the custodial sentence was disproportionate to the relatively minor factual circumstances of the offence.