R. v. Caouette (K.E.), (1994) 50 B.C.A.C. 238 (CA)

• Judge: Hinds, Hollinrake and Prowse, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: September 28, 1994
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1994), 50 B.C.A.C. 238 (CA)

R. v. Caouette (K.E.) (1994), 50 B.C.A.C. 238 (CA);

    82 W.A.C. 238

MLB headnote and full text

Regina (respondent) v. Keith Edward Caouette (appellant)

(V01969)

Indexed As: R. v. Caouette (K.E.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Hinds, Hollinrake and Prowse, JJ.A.

September 28, 1994.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of sexual assault while carrying a weapon, unlawful confinement and using a firearm while committing an indictable offence, contrary to ss. 272(a), 279(2) and 85(1) of the Criminal Code. He appealed from conviction.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4633

Procedure - Mistrials - Grounds - The accused was required to retain new counsel at a late stage in the trial - New counsel was unable to make submissions respecting the demeanour of witnesses - The credi­bility of several witnesses was in issue, particularly that of the complainant and the accused - The trial judge was emphatic in his acceptance of the complainant's evi­dence, in his rejection of the accused's evidence and in his finding that the evi­dence as a whole did not raise a reason­able doubt - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the trial judge would not have concluded differently even if the new defence counsel had made sub­missions on the witnesses' demeanour - Therefore, there was no error in refusing a mistrial.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. McCormick (R.A.) et al. (1993), 27 B.C.A.C. 177; 45 W.A.C. 177; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 209 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Counsel:

R.A. Mulligan, for the Crown;

A. Brooks, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on September 28, 1994, at Victoria, British Columbia, before Hinds, Hollinrake and Prowse, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On September 28, 1994, Prowse, J.A., delivered the following judg­ment orally for the Court of Appeal.