R. v. Goodstoney (G.E.), (2007) 404 A.R. 60 (CA)

• Judge: Fruman, Martin and Watson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: March 23, 2007
• Citations: (2007), 404 A.R. 60 (CA);2007 ABCA 88

R. v. Goodstoney (G.E.) (2007), 404 A.R. 60 (CA);

      394 W.A.C. 60

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] A.R. TBEd. MR.113

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Glenna Elissa Goodstoney (appellant)

(0501-0166-A; 2007 ABCA 88)

Indexed As: R. v. Goodstoney (G.E.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Fruman, Martin and Watson, JJ.A.

March 23, 2007.

Summary:

The accused was charged with first degree murder as a co-perpetrator or for counselling, aiding or abetting the person (Turningrobe) who actually stabbed the victim and had been previously found guilty of first degree murder. At the accused's trial, Turningrobe refused to be sworn as a witness and recanted three prior recorded statements implicating the accused in the death. At issue was whether the prior recorded statements were admissible.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported (2005), 377 A.R. 75, ruled that the third statement (KGB statement) was admissible subject to the condition that certain leading questions (and the answers) be excised and that the substance of the recantation also be admitted. The third statement was both necessary and reliable and its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect. The first two statements, although necessary, failed to meet the threshold for reliability. On the basis of direct and circumstantial evidence, after the fact conduct and self-incriminatory statements of the accused, and Turningrobe's recorded statement, the jury found the accused guilty of second degree murder. The accused appealed, submitting that the trial judge erred in admitting Turningrobe's statement and that the length, complexity and manner of delivering the jury charge confused the jury, rendering it defective and leading to an unreliable verdict.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The trial judge did not err in admitting Turningrobe's statement and the jury charge was not so defective as to result in an unreliable verdict due to jury confusion.

Criminal Law - Topic 4387.1

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Length or complexity of - The accused was convicted of second degree murder by a jury - On appeal, the accused submitted that the length and complexity of the jury charge confused the jury and led to an unreliable verdict - The accused did not allege specific errors or misdirections in the jury charge from a functional perspective - The jury charge took a full day to complete, at which time the jury requested that deliberations not commence until the next day - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, stating that "all in all, the jury charge here did what it was supposed to, sometimes more than once. The result was not misleading or unfair, nor would it have deflected the jury from their own seemingly careful analytical process." - See paragraphs 98 to 108.

Evidence - Topic 1527

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - General - Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable - Turningrobe was convicted of first degree murder - The accused was subsequently tried for the same offence as a co-perpetrator or for counselling, aiding or abetting Turningrobe - Turningrobe made three recorded statements to police, the last of which (KGB statement) implicated the accused in the death - Turningrobe refused to be sworn as a witness at the accused's trial - She recanted her earlier recorded statements - The Crown sought to admit all three statements - The accused opposed admission, particularly because of the unavailability of Turningrobe to be cross-examined - The trial judge ruled that the third statement (imperfectly sworn KGB statement) was admissible subject to the condition that certain leading questions (and the answers) be excised and that the substance of the recantation also be admitted - The statement was highly relevant and probative - The statement was admissible because it met the threshold of necessity and reliability and its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect - Although there was no opportunity for cross-examination, an oath was administered and the witness was warned of the consequences of not telling the truth - The first two statements were not admissible, having not met the threshold of reliability - The accused submitted that, inter alia, the trial judge erred in failing to consider inconsistencies in the statements in determining threshold reliability - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The trial judge was not obliged to find a lack of threshold reliability based on inconsistencies which he found did not "trump" threshold reliability - The trial judge properly weighed the relevant factors and did not err in finding that any prejudice would not impair trial fairness - See paragraphs 40 to 97.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Khelawon (R.) (2006), 355 N.R. 267; 220 O.A.C. 338; 42 C.R.(6th) 1; 2006 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Underwood (G.R.) (2002), 320 A.R. 151; 288 W.A.C. 151; 170 C.C.C.(3d) 500; 2002 ABCA 310, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Mapara (S.) et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 358; 332 N.R. 244; 211 B.C.A.C. 1; 349 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Czibulka (L.) (2004), 190 O.A.C. 1; 189 C.C.C.(3d) 199 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2005), 344 N.R. 194; 208 O.A.C. 396 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Hawkins (K.R.) and Morin (C.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043; 204 N.R. 241; 96 O.A.C. 81; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. F.J.U., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 764; 186 N.R. 365; 85 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Vetrovec; R. v. Gaja, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811; 41 N.R. 606, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Glasgow (T.G.) (1994), 133 N.S.R.(2d) 234; 380 A.P.R. 234 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Merz (H.J.) (1999), 127 O.A.C. 1; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 259; 46 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2000), 263 N.R. 391; 141 O.A.C. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Assoun (G.E.) (2006), 244 N.S.R.(2d) 96; 774 A.P.R. 96; 2006 NSCA 47, leave to appeal denied (2006), 359 N.R. 392 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. C.R.B., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 717; 107 N.R. 241; 109 A.R. 81; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Harvey (A.W.), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 311; 313 N.R. 190; 180 O.A.C. 254; 2002 SCC 80, affing. (2001), 152 O.A.C. 162; 57 O.R.(3d) 296; 160 C.C.C.(3d) 52 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Handy (J.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908; 290 N.R. 1; 160 O.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Humaid (A.A.) (2006), 210 O.A.C. 68; 208 C.C.C.(3d) 43 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2006), 361 N.R. 389 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. MacKay (K.D.), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 607; 343 N.R. 398; 275 Sask.R. 40; 365 W.A.C. 40; 2005 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Scott (J.M.) (2004), 228 N.S.R.(2d) 203; 723 A.P.R. 203; 191 C.C.C.(3d) 183; 26 C.R.(6th) 145 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2005), 346 N.R. 193; 2005 CarswellNS 341 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Johnson (W.D.) (2004), 225 N.S.R.(2d) 22; 713 A.P.R. 22; 2004 NSCA 91, leave to appeal denied (2005), 336 N.R. 200; 237 N.S.R.(2d) 403; 754 A.P.R. 403 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Canizales (W.) (2005), 198 O.A.C. 189; 198 C.C.C.(3d) 101 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Blackman (L.) (2006), 218 O.A.C. 291; 2006 CarswellOnt 8085 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. James (W.A.) et al. (2007), 251 N.S.R.(2d) 255; 802 A.P.R. 255; 2007 NSCA 19, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Di Iorio, [2007] J.Q. No. 394; 2007 QCCA 100, refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Duong (T.D.) (2007), 220 O.A.C. 131 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Lyttle (M.G.), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 193; 316 N.R. 52; 184 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Pires - see R. v. Lising (R.) et al.

R. v. Lising (R.) et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 343; 341 N.R. 147; 217 B.C.A.C. 65; 358 W.A.C. 65; 2005 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Sweitzer, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 949; 42 N.R. 550; 37 A.R. 294, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Allender (B.W.F.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 333; 214 N.R. 296; 94 B.C.A.C. 161; 152 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. P.S.B. (2004), 222 N.S.R.(2d) 26; 701 A.P.R. 26; 183 C.C.C.(3d) 399; 2004 NSCA 25, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Wray, [1971] S.C.R. 272; 11 D.L.R.(3d) 673, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Hart (W.A.) (1999), 174 N.S.R.(2d) 165; 532 A.P.R. 165; 23 C.R.(5th) 101; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 377 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2000), 261 N.R. 391; 190 N.S.R.(2d) 198; 594 A.P.R. 198 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Cameron (D.) (2006), 209 O.A.C. 310; 208 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Yu (J.) (2002), 317 A.R. 345; 284 W.A.C. 345; 171 C.C.C.(3d) 90 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2003), 326 N.R. 394; 357 A.R. 385; 334 W.A.C. 385 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Potvin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 525; 93 N.R. 42; 21 Q.A.C. 258, refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Kaddoura (1987), 82 A.R. 347; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 371 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. MacKay (K.D.), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 607; 343 N.R. 398; 275 Sask.R. 40; 365 W.A.C. 40; 2005 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Jacquard (C.O.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314; 207 N.R. 246; 157 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 462 A.P.R. 161; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Karaibrahimovic (J.J.) (2002), 303 A.R. 181; 273 W.A.C. 181; 2002 ABCA 102, refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. R.W.A. (2005), 203 O.A.C. 56; 202 C.C.C.(3d) 60 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Mezzo, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 802; 68 N.R. 1; 43 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Gunning (J.J.), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 627; 333 N.R. 286; 211 B.C.A.C. 51; 349 W.A.C. 51; 2005 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 106].

Counsel:

G. Tomljanovic, for the respondent;

B.Q.H. Der, Q.C., for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on October 12, 2006, before Fruman, Martin and Watson, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On March 23, 2007, the following memorandum of judgment was filed by the Court.