R. v. King (A.), (1998) 57 O.T.C. 70 (GD)

• Judge: D.S. Ferguson, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: January 08, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 57 O.T.C. 70 (GD)

R. v. King (A.) (1998), 57 O.T.C. 70 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.T.C. TBEd. FE.178

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Anthony King (applicant)

(No. 8835)

Indexed As: R. v. King (A.)

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

D.S. Ferguson, J.

January 8, 1998.

Summary:

The Crown sought to cross-examine the accused on a statement which was not adduced as part of the Crown's case. The accused had made the statement to the police. Defence counsel opposed on the ground that the Crown was splitting its case.

The Ontario Court (General Division) allowed the Crown to cross-examine. The court held that since the proffered statement here was exculpatory, it was only marginally, minimally or doubtfully relevant during the Crown's case and therefore the rule against splitting the Crown's case did not prevent its use in cross-examination.

Criminal Law - Topic 4516

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Splitting Crown's case - See paragraphs 1 to 29.

Criminal Law - Topic 5342

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Cross-examination on - See paragraphs 1 to 29.

Criminal Law - Topic 5433.1

Evidence and witnesses - Cross-examination of accused - Respecting exculpatory statements - See paragraphs 1 to 29.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Drake (1970), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 396 (Sask. Q.B.), appld. [para. 10].

R. v. Levy and Tait (1966), 50 Cr.App.R. 198, consd. [para. 11].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 385; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 1 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 2 C.R.(4th) 1, consd. [para. 14].

R. v. Rice, [1963] 1 All E.R. 832 (Ct. of Crim. App.), consd. [para. 15].

R. v. Ryckman (1971), 19 C.R.N.S. 14 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Ament (1972), 7 C.C.C.(2d) 83 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Rosa (1978), 6 C.R.(3d) 84 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Bruno (1975), 27 C.C.C.(2d) 318 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Brooks (1986), 28 C.C.C.(3d) 441 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Pappajohn (1978), 45 C.C.C.(2d) 67 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Briden (1960), 127 C.C.C. 154 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Lizotte (1980), 18 C.R.(3d) 364 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Authors and Works Noticed:

McWilliams, Peter K., Canadian Criminal Evidence (3rd Ed. 1988), paras. 15:14050, 31:10100 [para. 28].

Counsel:

E. Rosenberg, for the respondent;

F. McWatt, for the applicant.

This matter was heard at trial on January 7 and 8, 1998, by D.S. Ferguson, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division).

The decision of D.S. Ferguson, J., was delivered at trial on January 8, 1998 and the following written reasons were released on February 13, 1998.