Dissent found fundamentally inconsistent verdicts

Supreme court | Assault


Dissent found fundamentally inconsistent verdicts

Accused was charged with sexual assault and uttering threats but convicted by jury of lesser and included offence of assault. Conviction upheld. Photographs tendered as evidence could establish assault. Pictures were admitted with consent of defence, and were taken at police station by police three days after assault. While it was always challenging to articulate what evidence jury relied upon and what evidence it chose to reject, it was possible for jury to convict on assault only. Crown noted lack of DNA evidence combined with inconsistencies in victim’s evidence, might have left jury in some doubt about sexual nature of assault. Court not satisfied it was necessary in circumstances for trial judge to have given specific warning as to lack of corroboration. Decision to instruct on lesser offence of assault was discretionary one that was entitled to deference. Dissent found rejection of complainant’s evidence on sexual assault, combined with conviction for assault based on photographs, were fundamentally inconsistent verdicts.
R. v. Yelle (Jan. 22, 2014, S.C.C., McLachlin C.J.C., Abella J., Rothstein J., Cromwell J., and Moldaver J., File No. 35361) Decision at 108 W.C.B. (2d) 602 was affirmed.  111 W.C.B. (2d) 402.

Free newsletter

Our daily newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please complete the form below and click on subscribe for daily newsletters from Law Times.

Recent articles & video

80% of legal employers prefer technical skills to personality

Torys’ Linda Plumpton named to American College of Trial Lawyers

Pressure mounts for immigration lawyers working with Latin American clients

$100K prize offered by Canadian legal tech start-up

New Toronto legal clinic offers Korean-language services

BLG grows tax group with new counsel Andrea Dickinson

Most Read Articles

OPP charges former tax lawyer with fraud and obstruction of justice

New facets of pure economic loss rule could have huge implications for businesses

Does solicitor-client privilege protect information shared with a legal app?

Court addresses the denial of dependent support for egregious conduct