R. v. Flores (R.B.), (2013) 288 Man.R.(2d) 173 (CA)

• Judge: Scott, C.J.M., Hamilton and Monnin, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: January 23, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2013), 288 Man.R.(2d) 173 (CA);2013 MBCA 4

R. v. Flores (R.B.) (2013), 288 Man.R.(2d) 173 (CA);

      564 W.A.C. 173

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.003

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Ronald Balmores Flores (accused/appellant)

(AR 11-30-07581; 2013 MBCA 4)

Indexed As: R. v. Flores (R.B.)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Scott, C.J.M., Hamilton and Monnin, JJ.A.

January 23, 2013.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of sexual assault for having non-consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant. The accused called no defence evidence. The central issue at trial was the complainant's credibility. The accused appealed, arguing that inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony made a conviction unreasonable. The accused argued that the trial judge's reasons for judgment were insufficient, failed to address weaknesses in the complainant's testimony and relied on alleged confirmatory evidence which was neither confirmatory nor supportive of the complainant's evidence.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 583

Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions (incl. notes) - An accused convicted of sexual assault appealed on the ground that the trial judge's reasons for judgment were inadequate - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that respecting the ground of appeal "as to the sufficiency of the trial judge's reasons, the standard of review is a standard of adequacy. Reasons will be adequate if, when read in their entire context, they meet the three purposes set out in R. v. R.E.M. ..., namely, informing the parties of the basis of the verdict, providing public accountability and permitting a form of appeal" - See paragraph 19.

Criminal Law - Topic 4300

Procedure - Trial judge - Duties and functions of - Respecting credibility of witnesses - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5404 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4377

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding credibility of witnesses - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5404 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4684

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - [See Courts - Topic 583 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4865

Appeals - Indictable offences - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5404 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5321

Evidence and witnesses - Corroboration - General - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5404 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5404

Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Credibility - The accused was convicted of sexual assault for having non-consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant - They had been drinking together all day - The accused did not call evidence - The complainant testified to the accused having sex with her over her protestations, then punching her in the head - A neighbour testified as to hearing a commotion, the complainant's protestations and the accused shouting "shut up bitch" - She called the police, although not immediately - The police noted a goose egg size bump on the complainant's forehead - The trial judge noted inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, discrepancies between her trial testimony and statement to police, and her admitted lying at the preliminary inquiry respecting a matter unrelated to the alleged offence - The judge found that neighbour's evidence and police observations as corroborating or confirming the complainant's testimony - On appeal, the accused argued that the evidence was neither corroborative nor confirmatory, that the judge's reason were insufficient, that the judge failed to adequately consider and deal with inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and that given the admitted weaknesses in the complainant's testimony, the verdict was unreasonable - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The judge did not err in finding the evidence confirmatory and supporting the reliability of the complainant's testimony - The judge's reasons adequately dealt with and reconciled the contradictions and inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony - Most of the inconsistencies did not go to the core of the complainant's evidence that she was sexually assaulted - For those inconsistencies which did go to the core issue, the judge was alive to them and considered all testimony relevant to assessing the complainant's credibility - The guilty verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. G.G. (1995), 80 O.A.C. 12 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Sanderson (R.K.) (2003), 177 Man.R.(2d) 260; 304 W.A.C. 260; 2003 MBCA 109, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Grant (I.M.) (2009), 236 Man.R.(2d) 54; 448 W.A.C. 54; 2009 MBCA 9, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. R.E.M., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3; 380 N.R. 47; 260 B.C.A.C. 40; 439 W.A.C. 40; 2008 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Oddleifson (J.N.) (2010), 255 Man.R.(2d) 68; 486 W.A.C. 68; 2010 MBCA 44, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Dinardo (J.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788; 374 N.R. 198; 2008 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. R.P., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 746; 429 N.R. 361; 2012 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Biniaris (J.) (2000), 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Sinclair (T.), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 3; 418 N.R. 282; 268 Man.R.(2d) 225; 520 W.A.C. 225; 2011 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Beaudry (A.), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 190; 356 N.R. 323; 2007 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Hanson (K.J.) (2010), 491 A.R. 257; 2010 ABQB 128, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Chau (J.D.) (2010), 477 A.R. 326; 483 W.A.C. 326; 2010 ABQB 86, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Kehler (R.A.), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 328; 317 N.R. 30; 346 A.R. 19; 320 W.A.C. 19; 2004 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Monkman (G.S.) (2012), 288 Man.R.(2d) 1; 564 W.A.C. 1; 2012 MBCA 87, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Ponce et al. - see R. v. Monkman (G.S.) et al.

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 22 O.R.(3d) 514 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Mabior (C.L.) (2010), 258 Man.R.(2d) 166; 499 W.A.C. 166; 2010 MBCA 93, revd. (2012), 434 N.R. 431; 2012 SCC 47, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. J.A. (2010), 265 O.A.C. 304; 2010 ONCA 491, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Popiel (R.G.) (1999), 228 A.R. 351; 188 W.A.C. 351; 1999 ABCA 55, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. MacDonald (D.S.) (2008), 242 O.A.C. 244; 2010 ONCA 778, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Paddy (R.C.) (2011), 366 Sask.R. 4; 2011 SKCA 12, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Gagnon (L.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 621; 347 N.R. 355; 2006 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Davis (D.J.) (1995), 165 A.R. 243; 89 W.A.C. 243 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. H.S.B., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 32; 380 N.R. 130; 260 B.C.A.C. 122; 439 W.A.C. 122; 2008 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Portillo (W.) and Portillo (N.) (2003), 174 O.A.C. 226; 176 C.C.C.(3d) 467 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. A.G., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 439; 252 N.R. 272; 132 O.A.C. 1; 2000 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 62].

Counsel:

E.J. Roitenberg and L.C. Robinson, for the appellant;

A.Y. Kotler, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 14, 2011, before Scott, C.J.M., Hamilton and Monnin, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

On January 23, 2013, Monnin, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.