COURT FILE NO.: 26/18
DATE: 2019 03 07
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
JAMES ANTHONY SCORDINO
Amy Stevenson and Nick Chiera, for the Crown,
Ari Goldkind and Ryan Mushlian, for the Accused
HEARD: March 7, 2019
RULING – QUESTION FROM THE JURY #1
Conlan J.
[1] James Anthony Scordino (“Scordino”) is charged with first-degree murder, contrary to section 235(1) of the Criminal Code, in the death of Angela Skorulski (“victim”) at her residence in Oakville on or about February 13, 2017.
[2] In part, the prosecution theorizes that Mr. Scordino murdered Ms. Skorulski because he was angry that she had demanded that he accept sole responsibility for a civil lawsuit against them brought by the University of Toronto.
[3] The jury began deliberating in the late afternoon on March 6, 2019. About twenty-four hours later, the jury presented its first question for the Court’s consideration. It asked whether there was any evidence that the accused contacted his lawyer about removing the victim from the said lawsuit.
[4] Contrary to my initial impression, counsel both agreed that the question was significant in that it may relate to whether the jury would accept the Crown’s theory that Mr. Scordino had attended at the victim’s residence on the date of her alleged death on a ruse, and consequently, the question (if answered in the negative) may strengthen the Crown’s motive theory and the case for first rather than second degree murder.
[5] We followed the standard procedure for dealing with a question from the jury. The written note was read aloud in the absence of the jury and marked a lettered Exhibit, with copies given to counsel. Counsel were asked for submissions as to how the question should be answered. After a recess, those submissions were delivered. A ruling was made with brief oral reasons delivered in the Courtroom. The jury was brought in. The question was read aloud and the answer given. The jury was then directed to continue its deliberations.
[6] The answer given by the Court to the jury’s question was a simple “no”.
[7] It is common ground between counsel on both sides that the said answer is factually correct.
[8] Initially, the Crown wanted the Court to go on to say that there is circumstantial evidence in the form of electronic messages between Mr. Scordino and his girlfriend (Ms. Iuliano) from which it could be inferred that Mr. Scordino did not contact his lawyer about removing the victim from the said lawsuit.
[9] The Defence requested that the Court reflect carefully on the jury’s question and say something in the answer that would prevent the jury from reversing the burden of proof and/or falling into some other error.
[10] I decided to take a compromised position and answer the question with a simple “no”.
[11] One of the leading cases instructive on how to answer a jury’s question in a criminal trial is that of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. S.(W.D.), 1994 CanLII 76 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 521. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Cory, tells us trial judges that we must answer a jury’s question expeditiously but, at the same time, accurately and completely.
[12] In my assessment, the answer given achieves those objectives.
[13] There is no evidence (direct or circumstantial) that Mr. Scordino contacted his lawyer about the subject matter of the jury’s question. Thus, the answer given is accurate.
[14] Completeness is not measured by the number of words used in the reply but rather by an assessment of whether the answer leaves something unaddressed. The answer given does not. The jury was told, repeatedly, verbally and in writing, about the presumption of innocence, the right to silence, the burden of proof, and the standard of proof.
[15] The answer was given without undue delay.
[16] Finally, the answer was not unfair or imbalanced to the detriment of either side.
[17] Although my oral reasons on the record would have likely sufficed, I release this Ruling given the strenuous position taken by the Defence and in recognition that questions from the jury are always to be taken seriously and dealt with carefully.
[18] I thank counsel for their helpful submissions on the matter.
Conlan J.
Released: March 7, 2019
COURT FILE NO.: 26/18
DATE: 2019 03 07
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
JAMES ANTHONY SCORDINO
rULING – qUESTION FROM THE JURY #1
Conlan J.
Released: March 7, 2019