R. v. J.C.B., 2012 SKCA 108

• Judge: Jackson, Richards and Herauf, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: November 07, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2012 SKCA 108;(2012), 399 Sask.R. 291 (CA)

R. v. J.C.B. (2012), 399 Sask.R. 291 (CA);

    552 W.A.C. 291

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.039

J.C.B. (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(CACR2176; 2012 SKCA 108)

Indexed As: R. v. J.C.B.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Jackson, Richards and Herauf, JJ.A.

November 7, 2012.

Summary:

The accused was charged with sexual assault (s. 271 of the Criminal Code), sexual interference (s. 151) and sexual exploitation of a young person (s. 153). The complainant was under the age of 16 years when the offences allegedly occurred.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2012), 394 Sask.R. 312, convicted the accused of sexual assault. While the Crown had proven all of the elements of the sexual interference charge, the court entered a conditional stay, applying the Kienapple principle. The accused was not guilty of sexual exploitation. The accused appealed from the conviction.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: For a related decision involving this accused, see (2011), 382 Sask.R. 267.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Courts - Topic 583

Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions - The accused was convicted on a charge of sexual assault - On appeal, he asserted, inter alia, that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The trial judge's reasons set out the essential elements of the offence, clearly stated his credibility findings with respect to the complainant and the accused and explained why he accepted the complainant's evidence and rejected the accused's - The trial judge also explained why he was convinced the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - See paragraphs 12 and 13.

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 - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - The accused was convicted on a charge of sexual assault - On appeal, he asserted, inter alia, that the trial judge had misapprehended material evidence, drawn inferences that were incorrect and made errors in his finding of fact, all of which rendered the verdict unreasonable - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The trial judge had misapprehended one item of evidence, but it was not a material misapprehension - The other findings challenged by the accused were not misapprehensions of the evidence - Properly construing evidence in a way that was unfavourable to an accused did not constitute misapprehension of evidence - As to the verdict, there was probative evidence to support all of the material points - Therefore, the findings were afforded deference - Further, the trial judge acknowledged certain inconsistencies, but indicated that they were minor and were not in relation to the offence's particulars - A trial judge was not required to set out every consideration leading to a credibility finding - Reasonable inferences did not have to be spelled out - See paragraphs 7 to 10.

Criminal Law - Topic 4866

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Misapprehension of evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4865 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. 3].

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

R. v. Lohrer (A.W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 732; 329 N.R. 1; 208 B.C.A.C. 1; 344 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 80, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 7].

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. 10].

Counsel:

Kevin B. Lieslar, for the appellant;

W. Dean Sinclair, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard and determined orally on November 7, 2012, by Jackson, Richards and Herauf, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. Herauf, J.A., delivered the following written reasons for judgment for the court on November 16, 2012.