R. v. Corno (L.R.), 2015 NBCA 15

JudgeDrapeau, C.J.N.B., Deschênes and Richard, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (New Brunswick)
Case DateFebruary 12, 2015
JurisdictionNew Brunswick
Citations2015 NBCA 15;(2015), 437 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (CA)

R. v. Corno (L.R.) (2015), 437 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (CA);

      437 R.N.-B.(2e) 1; 1140 A.P.R. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.037

Renvoi temp.: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.037

Luc Robert Corno (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(83-14-CA; 2015 NBCA 15)

Indexed As: R. v. Corno (L.R.)

Répertorié: R. v. Corno (L.R.)

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Deschênes and Richard, JJ.A.

February 12, 2015.

Summary:

Résumé:

The accused was charged with production of cannabis marijuana, possession of cannabis marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of morphine.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 418 N.B.R.(2d) 308; 1087 A.P.R. 308, found the accused guilty as charged on all four counts. The accused appealed on a ground raising a question of law and sought leave to appeal on grounds that involved questions of fact or mixed law and fact.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and denied leave to appeal.

Narcotic Control - Topic 577

Offences - Possession - General - Constructive possession - The accused was charged with production of cannabis marijuana, possession of cannabis marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of morphine - The accused asserted that the only link between him and the property or the barn where the grow operation was found was the fact that he was found in the barn when the police executed a search warrant - Further, the only evidence linking him to the property was a series of cursory statements given by police witnesses which lacked the necessary force to place him in constructive possession - The trial judge convicted the accused on all four counts - The unopposed evidence of the officer in charge of the search warrant's execution was that the warrant was for the search of the accused's residence situated at the target address - The warrant would have been issued by a judge pursuant to sworn information based on reasonable and probable grounds - The judge was satisfied that the accused was the target of the warrant and the address on which the barn was located was the target property - The judge inferred from the male clothing in the bedroom located in the barn that the accused occupied the room as a bedroom and the barn as a residence - From the evidence discovered in the room, the judge inferred that the accused consumed methamphetamines and marijuana - The grow operation was located in two ensuite rooms that could only be accessed from the bedroom - The accused had access, knowledge and control of the grow operation - The only logical inference was that he produced the marijuana found in the rooms - The equipment and marijuana found inside the barn suggested production for the purpose of trafficking, not personal use - The fact that drugs were found stored in two thermos bottles, one in the barn and one in a shed, was consistent with the fact that they were part of the same operation and the same person had knowledge and control of the drugs - The fact that the accused's girlfriend was also found in the barn when the search was executed, or the fact that she might have been in constructive possession of the drugs, did not prevent a finding that the accused had constructive possession - The accused's guilt was the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts - The accused appealed, asserting that the judge misdirected herself on the law as it pertained to the mens rea of possession versus the mens rea of possession for the purpose of trafficking - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, stating that "As the Attorney General points out, '[i]n the absence of testimony from an accused in which he actually admits possession for the purpose of trafficking, the mens rea for this offence is always proven by circumstantial evidence'. In the present case, the trial judge found [the accused] was the grower of the marijuana plants and that he was in possession of the other drugs. She then applied the evidence of the expert witness regarding the nature of the equipment found on site, the amounts of drugs and the yield of the grow operation to find [the accused] possessed the substances for the purpose of trafficking. We find no error in her approach. [The accused's] contention that he might have only been in possession of drugs owned by someone else, who might have intended to traffic them, invites speculation and does not accord with the trial judge's findings and inferences of fact, none of which are the product of any palpable and overriding error." - See paragraph 4.

Narcotic Control - Topic 579

Offences - Possession - General - Mens rea - [See Narcotic Control - Topic 577 ].

Narcotic Control - Topic 606

Offences - Possession - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - [See Narcotic Control - Topic 577 ].

Narcotic Control - Topic 703

Offences - Trafficking - Possession for the purposes of trafficking - [See Narcotic Control - Topic 577 ].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Mikaël Henri Bernard, for the appellant;

Monica G. McQueen, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 12, 2015, by Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Deschênes and Richard, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The following decision of the court was delivered orally on the same date in both official languages.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT