R. v. Dionne (M.J.), (2005) 214 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 19, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 214 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);2005 SCC 29;[2005] CarswellBC 1186;214 BCAC 1;[2005] 1 SCR 665;198 CCC (3d) 159;336 NR 19;29 CR (6th) 32

R. v. Dionne (M.J.) (2005), 214 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);

    353 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2005] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.035

Martin Jacques Dionne (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(30488; 2005 SCC 29; 2005 CSC 29)

Indexed As: R. v. Dionne (M.J.)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.

May 19, 2005.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of robbery and knowingly having stolen money in his possession. He appealed his conviction.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Oppal, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported (2004), 202 B.C.A.C. 1; 331 W.A.C. 1, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed as of right.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1881

Offences against property - Doctrine of recent possession - Application of doctrine - Soon after a bank robbery, the police arrested the accused and two others - The accused had in his possession $630 in Canadian funds, $165 in American funds and a $10 bill that was identified as a "bait bill" taken from the bank - The accused was a "possible contributor" to DNA found on a cap recovered from the robbery - However, there were multiple contributors to the DNA on the cap - None of the witnesses was able to identify the accused or any other person involved - The trial judge convicted the accused of robbery and possessing stolen money - The trial judge relied on, inter alia, the doctrine of recent possession - The trial judge stated that "the logical conclusion to be drawn from [the accused's] possession of the bait money shortly after the robbery, the DNA evidence and the association with the other accused, is that [the accused] was involved in the robbery." - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the verdict was not unreasonable - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeal as meritless.

Criminal Law - Topic 1886

Offences against property - Doctrine of recent possession - Rebuttal of presumption raised by application of the doctrine - The accused was convicted of robbing a bank - In convicting the accused, the trial judge relied on the doctrine of recent possession on the basis that the accused was found with stolen money from the robbery - The accused appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the verdict was unreasonable - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the verdict was not unreasonable - The court considered, inter alia, the accused's silence - The court stated that "the principle that recent possession can call for an explanation is an aspect of the inference of recent possession. Sometimes the circumstances arising at the conclusion of the Crown's case, whether based on direct evidence or circumstantial evidence, or partly one and partly the other, can lead to a web from which the only reasonable inference is that the accused is guilty unless he or she offers an explanation. It is then incumbent on the accused, who never has to testify on his own behalf, to expect to be found guilty if no reasonable explanation is offered." - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as meritless.

Criminal Law - Topic 5314

Evidence - Witnesses - Inferences - From silence of accused or failure to explain - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1886 ].

Evidence - Topic 340

Circumstantial evidence - Proof of identity - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1881 ].

Counsel:

Gabriel Chand, for the appellant;

Kenneth D. Madsen, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 19, 2005, before McLachlin, Major, Bastarache, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered orally on May 19, 2005, in both official languages by Fish, J.