Criminal law — Appeal — Unreasonable verdict, Evidence Hearsay, Charge to Jury, Conduct of Crown, Question from Jury & Charter Rights, Sentencing

R. v. Shaw 2024 ONCA 119

Criminal law — Appeal — Unreasonable verdict — Three accused convicted of first-degree murder for shooting death — Crown’s case based on evidence of one witness with significant credibility and reliability problems — Two accused entitled to new trial for cumulative effect of errors by trial judge — Third accused entitled to acquittal based on unreasonable verdict — Witness’s identification evidence of third accused irredeemably tainted. — Evidence — Hearsay — Trial judge erred in refusing to allow witness’s hearsay statement to his lawyer to be used for truth of its contents — Judge failed to consider indicia of procedural and substantive reliability — Appeal allowed. — Trial — Charge to jury — Crown arguing there was corroborating evidence — Trial judge erred in giving inadequate response to jury’s question about corroborative evidence and in not giving corrective instruction regarding Crown’s improper closing address — Appeal allowed. — Trial — Conduct of Crown — Closing address — Crown’s closing address crossed from forceful advocacy to giving evidence and personal opinion — Trial judge erred by not giving corrective instruction — Appeal allowed. — Trial — Jury trial — Questions from jury —Crown arguing there was corroborating evidence — Trial judge erred in giving inadequate response to jury’s question about corroborative evidence — Appeal allowed.

?

R. v. Hanan (2023 SCC 12)

Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Trial within reasonable time — Jury trial adjourned for over a year after Crown refusing to consent to re-election to trial by judge alone — Accused’s application to stay proceedings for unreasonable delay dismissed based on transitional exceptional circumstance — Accused’s appeal from conviction dismissed — Trial judge in best position to assess whether overall delay was justified and concluded that parties did not have time to adjust to Jordan case establishing presumptive threshold for delay — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 11(b), 24.

Criminal law — Sentencing — Manslaughter — Accused convicted of manslaughter and discharging firearm with intent to wound arising from shooting that killed one victim and wounded another — Accused sentenced to 15 years — Sentence not demonstrably unfit — Judge referring to "shooting being intentional" reasons showing meaning intentional as opposed to accidental — Judge repeatedly referencing accused’s lack of intent to kill — Trial judge not sentencing accused on basis of intent to kill deceased — Appeal from sentence dismissed. — Trial — Charge to jury — Accused charged with murder and attempted murder for shooting and killing one victim and wounding another — Accused’s version of events differing from that of surviving victim — Trial judge referring to jury choosing between conflicting versions when summarizing evidence each side relied upon in support of their theory — Trial judge instructing jury that could accept all, some or none of witness’ evidence and when viewed in context, impugned passages would not have caused jury to think that they could decide only by choosing one version or another — Judge provided detailed and appropriate instructions regarding burden and standard of proof and defence counsel had not objected to charge at trial — Acquittal on first-degree murder charge demonstrating that jury did not choose between versions of events.

NOTE: The catchlines above relate to a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. An appeal of this judgment to the Supreme Court of Canada (C?té, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ.) was allowed, the convictions set aside and a stay of proceedings entered on May 5, 2023 (2023 SCC 12).

?