R. v. Johnson (D.T.), 2015 MBCA 28

• Judge: Steel, Monnin and Burnett, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: March 11, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2015 MBCA 28;(2015), 315 Man.R.(2d) 298 (CA)

R. v. Johnson (D.T.) (2015), 315 Man.R.(2d) 298 (CA);

      630 W.A.C. 298

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.030

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Damien Troy Johnson (accused/appellant)

(AR 14-30-08178; 2015 MBCA 28)

Indexed As: R. v. Johnson (D.T.)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Steel, Monnin and Burnett, JJ.A.

March 11, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference with a person under the age of 14 years. The accused appealed, claiming that the youth court, not the Court of Queen's Bench, had exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the offences because it was unclear as to whether the offences were committed after he attained the age of 18 years. The accused also claimed that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

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.

Criminal Law - Topic 5020

Appeals - Indictable offences - Setting aside verdicts - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - The accused was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference with a person under the age of 14 years - The offences were allegedly committed on or between October 16, 2003 and June 30, 2007 - The accused's 18th birthday was October 16, 2003 - The accused appealed, claiming that the youth court, not the Court of Queen's Bench, had exclusive jurisdiction because it was unclear as to whether the offences were committed after he attained the age of 18 years - The accused also claimed that the verdict was unreasonable - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The trial judge was entitled to find on the basis of the evidence that the offences were committed by the accused as an adult - The judge made no palpable and overriding error - The verdict was not unreasonable.

Cases Noticed:

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. 5].

R. v. R.P., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 746; 429 N.R. 361; 2012 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Burke (J.) (No. 3), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147, refd to. [para. 10].

Counsel:

M.B. Lazar, for the appellant;

A.Y. Kotler, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 11, 2015, before Steel, Monnin and Burnett, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court, by Burnett, J.A., on March 11, 2015.