Ontario criminal | Appeal
NEW TRIAL
Not clear how trial judge resolved problems with complainant’s testimony
Appeal from conviction. Accused charged on two separate information arising out of same events. On first information, accused charged with attempt to obstruct justice, threatening to cause bodily harm and breach of recognizance. On second information, accused charged with drug offences and breach of probation. Accused was convicted on all counts in first information. At second trial, judge believed accused and disbelieved complainant, and acquitted accused on second information. Evidence of second trial overlapped significantly with that in first trial. Accused appealed convictions from first trial. Appeal allowed; new trial ordered on all three counts. Complainant’s evidence was inconsistent and confused. Trial judge acknowledged problems in evidence but discounted them without explaining why. It was not clear how trial judge resolved problems with complainant’s testimony. Court did not give effect to ground of appeal that assistance of counsel was ineffective.
R. v. Labelle (Jan. 17, 2014, Ont. C.A., K. Feldman J.A., J. MacFarland J.A., and S.E. Pepall J.A., File No. CA C56173) 112 W.C.B. (2d) 113.
Not clear how trial judge resolved problems with complainant’s testimony
Appeal from conviction. Accused charged on two separate information arising out of same events. On first information, accused charged with attempt to obstruct justice, threatening to cause bodily harm and breach of recognizance. On second information, accused charged with drug offences and breach of probation. Accused was convicted on all counts in first information. At second trial, judge believed accused and disbelieved complainant, and acquitted accused on second information. Evidence of second trial overlapped significantly with that in first trial. Accused appealed convictions from first trial. Appeal allowed; new trial ordered on all three counts. Complainant’s evidence was inconsistent and confused. Trial judge acknowledged problems in evidence but discounted them without explaining why. It was not clear how trial judge resolved problems with complainant’s testimony. Court did not give effect to ground of appeal that assistance of counsel was ineffective.
R. v. Labelle (Jan. 17, 2014, Ont. C.A., K. Feldman J.A., J. MacFarland J.A., and S.E. Pepall J.A., File No. CA C56173) 112 W.C.B. (2d) 113.
