William Ehrcke

The appellant appealed his convictions for rape and indecent assault, arguing that the trial judge erred in excluding evidence of the complainant's prior sexual conduct under section 142(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that there was no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in assessing the victim's identification evidence and improperly drew an adverse inference from the appellant's failure to call alibi witnesses.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge unequivocally accepted the victim's identification evidence and was not left in a state of doubt.

The Court also concluded that the trial judge did not draw an adverse inference regarding the uncalled alibi witnesses.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting his daughter.

At trial, the judge initially excluded evidence of alleged sexual misconduct occurring prior to May 1981, finding its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

However, after defence counsel's cross-examination of the complainant's mother left a false impression regarding a previous incest charge, the trial judge admitted the previously excluded evidence to correct the narrative.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge erred in admitting this evidence, as its prejudicial effect still outweighed its probative value, and a mistrial should have been declared instead.

Furthermore, the Court found the trial judge's jury charge regarding the properly admitted similar fact evidence from 1983 and 1985 was inadequate, as it failed to warn the jury against using the evidence to infer guilt based on bad character.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The respondent was charged with possession of stolen property, but the information lacked an essential averment.

The trial judge quashed the defective counts after the respondent pleaded not guilty.

The Crown subsequently swore a new information containing the missing words.

The respondent pleaded autrefois acquit, which was refused by the second trial judge, leading to a conviction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal from conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the trial judge's decision to quash the original information under section 529 of the Criminal Code, rather than amending it, was tantamount to an acquittal, thereby making the plea of autrefois acquit available to the accused.