COURT FILE NO.: 18-0552 DATE: 2019 06 03 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – RAJA DOSANJH Accused
COUNSEL: J. Forward and E. Maguire for the Crown J. Greenspan and B.J. Greenshields, for the Accused
HEARD: May 27, 2019
LEMON J.
RULING RE: CROWN POWERPOINTS
RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION A Non-Publication Order is made pursuant to ss. 645(5) and 648(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada that publication of this ruling is prohibited.
The Issue
[1] The Crown seeks to use a variety of PowerPoint slides with respect to a variety of witnesses. Many have now been provided to the defence for review. To date, most have been agreed upon; however, a total of seven are in dispute. I have made my ruling with respect to the admissibility of those PowerPoints with brief reasons. This ruling confirms and adds to those reasons.
DNA Warrant
[2] Constable Neumann will testify with respect to DNA evidence obtained at the scene. The admissibility of that evidence is not in dispute. However, the defence objects to the label on the PowerPoint reading “DNA Warrant Authorized by Justice McArthur permitted the taking of bodily substances from Raja Dosanjh.” The defence submits that this would suggest that Mr. Dosanjh objected to the sample being taken and that a warrant was necessary. While the DNA evidence is admissible, there should be no reference to the warrant process.
[3] In response, the Crown submits that it was not its intention to suggest that the sample was taken other than voluntarily.
[4] On that basis, this slide should be edited to remove the line in dispute but is otherwise admissible.
Arrest Photo of Mr. Dosanjh
[5] This photograph was taken February 28, 2017. The offence is alleged to have been committed March 1, 2016. Now, in May of 2019, Mr. Dosanjh looks significantly different. He is thinner and wears glasses.
[6] The defence submits that this photograph will not assist with the identification of Mr. Dosanjh given the length of time between the shooting and the arrest.
[7] The Crown submits that identification is one of the significant issues in this case. The appearance of Mr. Dosanjh a year after the offence will assist the jury.
[8] There is no objection to the title “Arrest Photo of Raja Dosanjh, February 28, 2017”.
[9] I presume that the photograph can be properly authenticated by a witness.
[10] Given the significance of identification in this trial, this photo is relevant. I do not see that any prejudice that will outweigh its probative value. It will be easy enough for the defence to point out the deficiencies of the evidence given the time difference. While there may be weaknesses in the evidence as a result of that cross-examination, it makes the photograph no less relevant or admissible.
Video
[11] As part of its case, the Crown will be showing a videotape of the shooting from the hotel reception camera. The defence does not dispute the admissibility of the video.
[12] The Crown will be proceeding slowly through that video with the use of still frame photographs. The defence does not dispute the use of the still frame photos.
[13] There are five still frame photographs in dispute. The Crown agrees that the labels of “Shooter” and “Shooter/Gun”, must be removed from the slides. The Crown further confirms that although the Crown’s theory is that the video shows a man dropping a gun, that is not confirmed by the video. Rather, it shows that an individual dropped something within the video.
[14] The Crown proposes to avoid opinions from the officer who seized the video but does wish the witness to identify items in the video and stills that might be missed by the jury.
[15] The defence objects to any opinion evidence that the officer may proffer with the stills.
[16] I agree with the Crown that the video is extremely brief and there are a number of items within it that need to be focused upon. The slides and some narration will be of benefit to the jury.
[17] I am asked to rule on the admissibly of the PowerPoints, not the evidence of the witness. The concerns of the defence are valid and the Crown appears to accept them. However, without more, I cannot rule on a script for the witness.
[18] The documents are admissible but how the witness describes them is another issue. I leave that to the trial.
[19] Accordingly, I ruled that the PowerPoints were properly admissible.
“Justice Lemon” Lemon J.
Released: June 3, 2019
COURT FILE NO.: 18-0552 DATE: 2019 06 03 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – RAJA DOSANJH Accused RULING RE: Crown powerpoints Lemon J.
Released: June 3, 2019