R. v. Crowley (R.A.), 2015 NBCA 61
| Judge | Quigg, Green and Baird, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (New Brunswick) |
| Case Date | June 25, 2015 |
| Jurisdiction | New Brunswick |
| Citations | 2015 NBCA 61;(2015), 441 N.B.R.(2d) 146 (CA) |
R. v. Crowley (R.A.) (2015), 441 N.B.R.(2d) 146 (CA);
441 R.N.-B.(2e) 146; 1152 A.P.R. 146
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. OC.021
Renvoi temp.: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.021
Ryan Andrew Crowley (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)
(94-14-CA; 2015 NBCA 61)
Indexed As: R. v. Crowley (R.A.)
Répertorié: R. v. Crowley (R.A.)
New Brunswick Court of Appeal
Quigg, Green and Baird, JJ.A.
October 8, 2015.
Summary:
Résumé:
The accused appealed his conviction for assault.
The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1802
The prosecutor - Role of - The accused appealed his conviction for assault, asserting that the Crown's failure to cross-examine him concerning evidence that the trial judge referenced in her credibility analysis was a violation of the rule in Browne v. Dunn (1893, HL) - He further asserted that the Crown had a duty to obtain collateral evidence from independent sources which could have refuted the complainant's version of events - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the rule in Browne v. Dunn was not engaged - The prosecutor was under no obligation to elicit evidence that could have been offered by the accused during his direct examination - It was not the court's role to second-guess the trial strategy of counsel - If the accused's counsel believed that the evidence was critical to the ultimate finding of guilt, he could have put those parts of the complainant's testimony to the accused in direct examination - Alternatively, he could have introduced collateral evidence in cross-examination to impeach the complainant's credibility, or to raise a reasonable doubt in the judge's mind concerning guilt - Further, the impugned events were not critical to the judge's finding of guilt - See paragraphs 15 to 22.
Criminal Law - Topic 4377
Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding credibility of witnesses - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1802 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 4377
Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding credibility of witnesses - The accused appealed his conviction for assault, asserting that the trial judge erred by failing to assess the evidence in the manner prescribed by R. v. D.W. (1991, SCC) - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The accused and the complainant gave two distinct versions of events - The trial judge referenced D.W. and correctly observed that it would be improper for her to choose one version over the other - She then assessed the totality of the evidence, making observations concerning the demeanor of the witnesses, the reliability of the evidence, and the lack of detail offered by the accused concerning key events in the narrative, which she found troubling - She applied the D.W. analysis - Her reasons substantiated the underpinning of her credibility assessment - Contextually, her reasons were sufficient to support her findings of guilt - The reasons were clear and articulate - The credibility analysis was fulsome and complete - The allegation that the judge committed palpable and overriding error was also without merit - The findings of credibility were anchored in appropriate considerations, and the judge's findings of fact were grounded in the evidence that she believed - See paragraphs 6 to 14.
Criminal Law - Topic 4379
Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions re evidence of character or credibility of accused - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1802 and second Criminal Law - Topic 4377 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 4509
Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty respecting questioning of witnesses - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1802 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 4684
Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 4377 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 4806
Appeals - Indictable offences - General principles - Duty of appellate court - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1802 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 5404
Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Credibility - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1802 and second Criminal Law - Topic 4377 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 5409
Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Duty of Crown to call witnesses or adduce certain evidence from a witness - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1802 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 5435
Evidence and witnesses - Cross-examination of accused - Credibility - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1802 ].
Evidence - Topic 4716
Witnesses - Examination - Cross-examination - On testimony to be contradicted - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1802 ].
Evidence - Topic 4726
Witnesses - Examination - Impeaching credibility - Duty to give witness opportunity to explain - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1802 ].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 1].
Browne v. Dunn (1983), 6 R. 67 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 1].
R. v. Gillis (R.J.) (2014), 426 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 1110 A.P.R. 1; 2014 NBCA 58, refd to. [para. 6].
R. v. J.N.C. (2013), 409 N.B.R.(2d) 310; 1062 A.P.R. 310; 2013 NBCA 59, refd to. [para. 7].
R. v. Banks (L.A.) (2012), 396 N.B.R.(2d) 325; 1024 A.P.R. 325; 2012 NBCA 80, refd to. [para. 8].
R. v. Robichaud (M.J.-G.) (2014), 415 N.B.R.(2d) 218; 1076 A.P.R. 218; 2014 NBCA 1, refd to. [para. 9].
R. v. Dinardo (J.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788; 374 N.R. 198; 2008 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 11].
R. v. Arsenault (D.J.) (2005), 295 N.B.R.(2d) 123; 766 A.P.R. 123; 2005 NBCA 110, refd to. [para. 11].
R. v. Gahan (T.J.) (2014), 418 N.B.R.(2d) 104; 1087 A.P.R. 104; 2014 NBCA 18, refd to. [para. 11].
R. v. Lakas (S.P.), [2011] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 75; 2011 NBCA 67, refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. Quansah (R.) (2015), 331 O.A.C. 304; 2015 ONCA 237, refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. McNeill (S.) (2000), 131 O.A.C. 346 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Lavoie (J.) (2010), 363 N.B.R.(2d) 55; 936 A.P.R. 55; 2010 NBCA 52, refd to. [para. 20].
R. v. Gardiner (J.I.) (2010), 362 N.B.R.(2d) 179; 934 A.P.R. 179; 2010 NBCA 46, refd to. [para. 20].
R. v. E.K.M. (2012), 391 N.B.R.(2d) 130; 1013 A.P.R. 130; 2012 NBCA 64, refd to. [para. 21].
Counsel:
Avocats:
Ryan Andrew Crowley, appeared in person;
Kathryn A. Gregory, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on June 25, 2015, by Quigg, Green and Baird, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. Baird, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court, in both official languages, on October 8, 2015.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Roy (D.), 2016 NBCA 51
...Abella J. in R. v. Lohrer , 2004 SCC 80, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 732). The reasons in Gillis were reiterated by the Court in Crowley v. R. , 2015 NBCA 61, 441 N.B.R.(2d) 146, at paras. 6-11. In summary, when credibility is in issue, the trial judge's analysis should inform that he or she applied th......
-
Russell v. R.,
...rule, R. v. Quansah, 2015 ONCA 237, [2015] O.J. No. 1774 (QL), at para. 79. That case was in turn mentioned approvingly in Crowley v. R., 2015 NBCA 61, [2015] N.B.J. No. 229 (QL), and Oland. In both Quansah and this Court’s decision in Shephard, the rule is described as applicable to a “par......
-
Shephard v. R, 2019 NBCA 76
...(see Gillis v. R., 2014 NBCA 58, 426 N.B.R. (2d) 1, at paras. 92-96, leave to appeal denied [2014] S.C.C.A. No. 496 (QL); Crowley v. R., 2015 NBCA 61, 441 N.B.R. (2d) 146; Mockler v. New Brunswick et al., 2019 NBCA 50, [2019] N.B.J. No. 170 (QL), at para. 76; and R. v. Hart (1932), 23 Cr. A......
-
Pinard v. R., 2020 NBQB 166
...appeal, deference is accorded to the trial judge’s credibility findings in the absence of palpable and overriding error. In R. v. Crowley 2015 NBCA 61 (N.B.C.A.) the Court of Appeal said at paras. The standard of appellate review on issues of credibility was recently reiterated in Gillis v.......
-
R. v. Roy (D.), 2016 NBCA 51
...Abella J. in R. v. Lohrer , 2004 SCC 80, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 732). The reasons in Gillis were reiterated by the Court in Crowley v. R. , 2015 NBCA 61, 441 N.B.R.(2d) 146, at paras. 6-11. In summary, when credibility is in issue, the trial judge's analysis should inform that he or she applied th......
-
Russell v. R.,
...rule, R. v. Quansah, 2015 ONCA 237, [2015] O.J. No. 1774 (QL), at para. 79. That case was in turn mentioned approvingly in Crowley v. R., 2015 NBCA 61, [2015] N.B.J. No. 229 (QL), and Oland. In both Quansah and this Court’s decision in Shephard, the rule is described as applicable to a “par......
-
Shephard v. R, 2019 NBCA 76
...(see Gillis v. R., 2014 NBCA 58, 426 N.B.R. (2d) 1, at paras. 92-96, leave to appeal denied [2014] S.C.C.A. No. 496 (QL); Crowley v. R., 2015 NBCA 61, 441 N.B.R. (2d) 146; Mockler v. New Brunswick et al., 2019 NBCA 50, [2019] N.B.J. No. 170 (QL), at para. 76; and R. v. Hart (1932), 23 Cr. A......
-
Pinard v. R., 2020 NBQB 166
...appeal, deference is accorded to the trial judge’s credibility findings in the absence of palpable and overriding error. In R. v. Crowley 2015 NBCA 61 (N.B.C.A.) the Court of Appeal said at paras. The standard of appellate review on issues of credibility was recently reiterated in Gillis v.......