Supreme Court of Canada
Manza v. R., 1981 CanLII 57 (SCC), [1981] 2 SCR 131
Tulio Manza (Plaintiff) Appellant;
and
Her Majesty The Queen (Defendant) Respondent.
1981: November 9.
Present: Laskin C.J. and Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Mclntyre and Lamer JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.
Headnote
Criminal law—Conviction of trafficking in heroin—Crucial evidence given by an accomplice and accepted—Conviction—Whether or not the reasons of the trial judge were adequate to support the conviction.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario pronounced on July 30, 1980, dismissing without reasons the appellant’s appeal from the judgment of Maloney J. pronounced on September 21, 1979, convicting the appellant of trafficking in heroin. Appeal dismissed.
Counsel
Claude Thomson, Q.C., and J.S. Leon, for the appellant.
Douglas Rutherford, Q.C., and Michael R. Dambrot, for the respondent.
Judgment
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
THE CHIEF JUSTICE—The sole issue raised in this case is whether the reasons of the trial judge, sitting alone on a drug trafficking charge, were adequate to support the conviction or whether there was a reversible error in his failure to advert to the danger of acting on accomplice evidence unless corroborated. Counsel for the appellant concedes that if the evidence of the accomplice is accepted the conviction was properly entered.
We are of the opinion that the trial judge’s reasons, read in the light of the argument of counsel the day before on the very point in issue, were sufficient to support the conviction, especially having regard to his acceptance of the evidence of the accomplice, of which there was, in fact, corroboration.
[Page 132]
The appeal accordingly fails and must be dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Campbell, Godfrey & Lewtas, Toronto.
Solicitor for the respondent: R. Tassé, Ottawa.