R. v. Bouvier, (1984) 1 O.A.C. 302 (CA)

• Judge: Martin, Goodman and Robins, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: February 03, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1984), 1 O.A.C. 302 (CA)

R. v. Bouvier (1984), 1 O.A.C. 302 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Bouvier

Indexed As: R. v. Bouvier

Ontario Court of Appeal

Martin, Goodman and Robins, JJ.A.

February 3, 1984.

Summary:

The accused was charged with rape and was acquitted by a judge and jury. In addition to circumstantial evidence linking the accused with the crime the complainant identified the accused as her attacker and a taxi driver identified the accused as the man who followed the complainant into her apartment building. The trial judge's directions to the jury conveyed the impression that to convict the jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that both the complainant and the taxi driver correctly identified the accused. The Crown appealed on the ground that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required on the totality of the evidence and not with regard to individual items of evidence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge fatally misdirected the jury that they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt on the identification evidence instead of on the totality of the evidence.

Criminal Law - Topic 4351

Procedure - Jury charge - Burden of proof and reasonable doubt - In a rape trial where there was both circumstantial and identification evidence against the accused, the trial judge instructed the jury that they had to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt with regard to the correctness of the identification evidence to acquit - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that it was a fatal misdirection to instruct the jury that they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to individual components of the evidence instead of on the totality of the evidence.

Criminal Law - Topic 4361

Procedure - Jury charge - Identification - The Ontario Court of Appeal generally discussed directions to the jury regarding evidence of identification of the accused as the person who committed a crime - The court held that the jury should be instructed of the need for caution in acting upon the correctness of visual identification evidence, but should also refer to other evidence, which may be capable of supporting the identification evidence - The court held further that it was fatal error for the trial judge to instruct the jury that they had to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt about the correctness of identification evidence to convict, where identification evidence was not the only evidence, because reasonable doubt must relate to the whole of the evidence and not individual components.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lynch, Malone and King (1978), 40 C.C.C.(2d) 7, appld. [para. 23].

Thomas v. R., [1972] N.Z.L.R. 34, appld. [para. 23].

U.S. v. Valenti, 134 F.2d 362, appld. [para. 23].

Bigaouette v. R., [1927] S.C.R. 112, appld. [para. 29].

R. v. Turnbull and others (1976), 63 Cr. App. R. 132, consd. [para. 32].

People v. Casey (No. 2), [1963] I.R. 33, consd. [para. 39].

R. v. Sutton, [1970] 3 C.C.C. 152, consd. [para. 39].

R. v. Baskerville, [1916] 2 K.B. 658, consd. [para. 41].

R. v. Morgan, Dempsey and Dempsey, [1947] O.R. 805, consd. [para. 41].

Gouin v. R., [1926] S.C.R. 539, consd. [para. 41].

R. v. Olbey (1971), 4 C.C.C.(2d) 103, consd. [para. 42].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cross on Evidence (5th Ed.), p. 114 [para. 23].

Devlin Report on Evidence of Identification [para. 32].

Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed.), vol. 9, p. 324 [para. 23].

Counsel:

Bonnie J. Wein, for the Crown/appellant;

Michael J. Neville, for the accused/respondent.

This case was heard on December 13, 1983, at Toronto, Ontario, before Martin, Goodman and Robins, JJ.A., of the Ontario Supreme Court, Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Martin, J.A., and was released on February 3, 1984.