R. v. Gordon (L.), (2011) 515 A.R. 219

• Judge: Martin, Rowbotham and O'Ferrall, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Northwest Territories)
• Case Date: October 18, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Northwest Territories
• Citations: (2011), 515 A.R. 219

R. v. Gordon (L.) (2011), 515 A.R. 219; 532 W.A.C. 219 (NWTCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. DE.002

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Lloyd Gordon (appellant)

(A-1-AP-2011-000005; 2011 NWTCA 6)

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

Northwest Territories Court of Appeal

Martin, Rowbotham and O'Ferrall, JJ.A.

November 15, 2011.

Summary:

At 12:03 p.m., an RCMP officer received a call from the accused (Gordon) who complained about a person (Mouse) banging on his apartment door. Eight minutes later, the officer received a call from the Health Center that Mouse was there, and that he had a stomach wound. At 1:11 p.m., the officer arrested Gordon. Gordon appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, on the basis, inter alia, that the trial judge improperly permitted the Crown to enter into a voir dire after he had taken the stand. The issue involved the use of Gordon's prior inconsistent statement to the police to cross-examine the accused, where the statement had not been put into evidence as part of the Crown's case.

The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5334 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3160

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to remain silent (Charter, s. 7) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5334 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4435

Protection against self-incrimination - Proceedings to which protection applies - Voir dire - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5334 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5235

Evidence and witnesses - Rebuttal evidence - By Crown - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5334 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5334

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Voir dire - Procedure - The accused appealed his conviction for aggravated assault - A ground of appeal was that the trial judge improperly permitted the Crown to open a voir dire after the accused had taken the stand - The issue involved the use of the accused's prior inconsistent statement to the police to cross-examine the accused, where the statement had not been put into evidence as part of the Crown's case - The accused argued that the Charter right to silence and the right to make full answer and defence demanded that an accused know the case that was to be met before choosing to take the stand - The accused asked the appellate court to articulate a principle that in all cases where an accused had given a statement to a person in authority, the Crown had to enter into a voir dire before it closed its case - The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal declined to adopt such a principle - "There is already a legal principle by which this court is bound. ... The procedure proposed by the appellant would require the Crown to establish the voluntariness of an accused's statement in the off chance that the accused might offer contradictory testimony. This would result in a waste of the court's time and of valuable resources ... Here the Crown sought to use the statement solely to test the accused's credibility. It did not propose to use the statement to establish a material fact. ... Moreover, the accused [ultimately] admitted that the statement was voluntary" - See paragraphs 11 to 14.

Evidence - Topic 511

Presentation of evidence - Rebuttal evidence - Criminal cases - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5334 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 385; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161, folld. [para. 12].

R. v. Drake (1970), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 396 (Sask. Q.B.), folld. [para. 12].

R. v. Zoe (H.), [2009] Northwest Terr. Cases Uned. 19 (T.C.), dist. [para. 13].

Counsel:

M. Lecorre, for the respondent;

A. Parr, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on October 18, 2011, before Martin, Rowbotham and O'Ferrall, JJ.A., of the Northwest Territories Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment was filed at Yellowknife, N.W.T., on November 15, 2011.