R. v. Barriault (J.M.), (1993) 28 B.C.A.C. 241 (CA)

• Judge: Southin, Cumming and Finch, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: June 18, 1993
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1993), 28 B.C.A.C. 241 (CA)

R. v. Barriault (J.M.) (1993), 28 B.C.A.C. 241 (CA);

    47 W.A.C. 241

MLB headnote and full text

Regina (respondent) v. John Michael Barriault (appellant)

(CA015325)

Indexed As: R. v. Barriault (J.M.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Southin, Cumming and Finch, JJ.A.

June 18, 1993.

Summary:

The accused appealed his conviction for uttering a threat.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4293

Procedure - Trial judge - Duties and functions of - Non-jury trials - Duty to inform self on law and fact - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that "in the absence of anything to the contrary on the record it is presumed that a trial judge applied the proper legal principles. He is presumed to know the law unless misdirection or error is manifest in the reasons given. ... the trial judge is not required to record all or indeed any of the process of his deliberation on the facts and is not required as a matter of law to state his reasons for rejecting the testimony of an accused." - See paragraphs 23 to 24.

Criminal Law - Topic 5494

Evidence - Witnesses - Motive or design - Admissibility - The accused had a relationship with a woman prior to her marriage - When the marriage began to break up, incidents between the accused and the woman and her husband showed he still had an interest in her - The woman's husband was threatened with death in a telephone call - The woman and her husband both identified the caller as the accused - The accused submitted that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the history of the relationship and incidents between the accused and the woman and her husband - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that the evidence was admissible to show motive on the part of the accused and, thus, to prove identity of the caller.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Twist (1980), 16 C.R.(3d) 94 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Bush (1938), 71 C.C.C. 269 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Morin (K.M.) (1992), 142 N.R. 141; 131 A.R. 81; 25 W.A.C. 81; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Churla (1991), 1 B.C.A.C. 110; 1 W.A.C. 110 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Keshane (L.) (1992), 11 B.C.A.C. 86; 22 W.A.C. 86 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. V.K. (1991), 68 C.C.C.(3d) 18 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Richardson (1992), 57 O.A.C. 54; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 15 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Lewis, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 821; 27 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Jack (1992), 76 Man.R.(2d) 168; 10 W.A.C. 168; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 67 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Neilson and Stolar (1984), 30 Man.R.(2d) 81; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 39 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 264.1(1)(a) [para. 1]; sect. 686(1)(b)(iii) [para. 38].

Counsel:

Grant Gray and N.J. McDougall, for the appellant;

Gillian Parson, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard on June 10-11, 1993, before Southin, Cumming and Finch, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On June 18, 1993, Cumming, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.