R. v. Campbell (R.), (2003) 170 O.A.C. 282 (CA)

• Judge: Carthy, Goudge and Gillese, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: March 25, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2003), 170 O.A.C. 282 (CA)

R. v. Campbell (R.) (2003), 170 O.A.C. 282 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.071

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Ronald Campbell (appellant)

(C37597)

Indexed As: R. v. Campbell (R.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Carthy, Goudge and Gillese, JJ.A.

April 23, 2003.

Summary:

An accused was convicted by judge and jury of attempted murder and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment. The accused appealed the conviction and sentence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1258

Offences against person and reputation - Attempted murder - Jury charge - An accused appealed his conviction for attempted murder, asserting that the trial judge gave an unnecessary instruction distinguishing an attempt from mere preparation under s. 24 of the Criminal Code with the result that he obscured the simple issue of whether the accused intended to kill the complainant - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - There was no doubt that the charge unnecessarily referred to s. 24(2) - However, the charge made it clear that the jury's key task was to determine if the Crown had proven the necessary intent for attempted murder - Having left the jury so squarely with this task, the jury would not have been tempted to conclude from the s. 24(2) instruction that the trial judge was answering that question for them - Rather, they would have understood that the trial judge was describing the distinction between an attempt to commit an offence and mere preparation - See paragraph 7.

Criminal Law - Topic 4379

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions re evidence of character or credibility of accused - An accused appealed his conviction for attempted murder, asserting that the trial judge erred in the first step of the jury instruction mandated by R. v. D.W. (S.C.C.) - The trial judge had used the following language: "First, if you accept the evidence favouring the accused, including his testimony on this matter, and find it to be factually true when weighed against the contradictory evidence, if so, you must acquit the accused." - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - It was not reversible error to describe the first step in terms of believing the accused's evidence when "weighed against" the contradictory evidence - Assessment of the accused's evidence could not be done in isolation - Although it would have been preferable to describe the step in terms of considering the accused's evidence in the context of the entirety of the evidence, since that steered more clearly away from the risk of simply choosing between the accused's and the complainant's evidence - Nonetheless, the language used was not fatal - It recognized the reality that the context in which the accused's evidence had to be considered was contradictory evidence from the complainant - See paragraphs 3 to 6.

Criminal Law - Topic 5831.9

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Domestic violence - An accused was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment for attempted murder - The accused appealed, asserting that the trial judge erred in giving prominence to denunciation and deterrence despite the fact that he was a first offender - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The sentence was within the appropriate range for attempted murder in a domestic situation - The principle of deterrence was of paramount importance in determining the appropriate sentence for crimes of domestic violence - See paragraphs 8 and 9.

Criminal Law - Topic 5881

Sentence - Murder - Attempts - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5831.9 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. W.D. - see R. v. D.W.

R. v. D.L.M., [1996] O.J. No. 3596 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Edwards (D.A.); R. v. Levo (A.E.) (1996), 88 O.A.C. 217; 28 O.R.(3d) 54 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Counsel:

Delmar Doucette, for the appellant;

Christine Tier, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 25, 2003, by Carthy, Goudge and Gillese, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court released the following endorsement on April 23, 2003.