R. v. Caesar (T.)

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Judge: Blair, Tulloch and Pardu, JJ.A.
• Citation: (2016), 350 O.A.C. 352 (CA),2016 ONCA 599
• Date: 30 March 2016

R. v. Caesar (T.) (2016), 350 O.A.C. 352 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.030

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Tamille Caesar (appellant)

(C59609; 2016 ONCA 599)

Indexed As: R. v. Caesar (T.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Blair, Tulloch and Pardu, JJ.A.

July 28, 2016.

Summary:

The accused and her boyfriend, Anderson, attended her cousin's wedding in St. Lucia. When they returned to Canada, each was carrying a substantial quantity of cocaine in their luggage. They were charged jointly with importing cocaine on the Crown's theory that they were engaged in a joint enterprise involving the total amount of cocaine brought into the country (3.6 kilograms, with a street value of about $130,000). Anderson pled guilty. The accused proceeded to trial before a jury. She was convicted and, on the trial judge's finding that the importation was a joint enterprise and that the jury had rejected her claim that she had been set up by Anderson, sentenced to six years in prison. The accused appealed her conviction on the ground that the trial judge erred in refusing her request "to admit the evidence of Mr. Anderson's guilty plea" at her trial. As well, she sought leave to appeal, and if leave was granted, appealed the sentence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The court held that the evidence of Anderson's guilty plea alone, as recorded on the back of the original indictment, was admissible and that the accused should be permitted to tender it. Her defence was that she was simply a blind courier who had been "set up" by Anderson. On her view of the case, the jurors needed to know "what happened to Mr. Anderson" and that he had taken at least some responsibility, because, in the absence of that information, they could be left with the misleading impression that she alone was responsible. The court set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial on that ground alone. The court noted that it would not accede to the accused's argument that she should have been permitted to lead evidence of the facts underlying the guilty plea. The trial judge properly excluded that evidence, absent Anderson, who was available, being called to testify, on the basis that it was hearsay evidence that did not meet the tests of necessity and reliance in the circumstances. It was unnecessary to deal with the sentence appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4354

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding pleas or evidence of witnesses, co-accused and accomplices - See paragraphs 31 to 83.

Criminal Law - Topic 4399.5

Procedure - Charge or directions to jury - Directions re conviction and sentence of alleged co-author of crime - See paragraphs 31 to 83.

Criminal Law - Topic 5508

Evidence and witnesses - Evidence of accomplices and co-defendants - Guilty plea or conviction - See paragraphs 31 to 83.

Evidence - Topic 1700

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - Official statements - Reports - General - See paragraphs 31 to 83.

Evidence - Topic 3792

Documentary evidence - Public documents - Judicial records - Exemplification - See paragraphs 31 to 83.

Counsel:

Brian Eberdt, for the appellant;

Maria Gaspar, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 30, 2016, before Blair, Tulloch and Pardu, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Blair, J.A., on July 28, 2016.