R. v. Lohrer (A.W.)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Citation: 2004 SCC 80,(2004), 329 N.R. 1 (SCC),2004 SCC 82,[2004] 3 SCR 760
• Date: 10 December 2004

R. v. Lohrer (A.W.) (2004), 329 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.R. TBEd. DE.045

Allan Wayne Lohrer (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(30160; 2004 SCC 80)

Indexed As: R. v. Lohrer (A.W.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.

December 10, 2004.

Summary:

The accused was charged with the aggra­vated assault of C and H, with uttering threats to C and H and their families, and with using a weapon during the assault. The accused was convicted of the aggravated as­sault of C, assault causing bodily harm of H and uttering threats to C and H and their fam­ilies. The accused appealed from convic­tion, submitting, inter alia, that the trial judge misapprehended material evidence.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Hollinrake, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment re­ported (2003), 186 B.C.A.C. 58; 306 W.A.C. 58, dismissed the appeal. The ac­cused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. There was no misapprehension of evidence going to substance, rather than just detail. The alleged errors did not play an es­sential part in the reasoning process result­ing in conviction. There was no error in appreci­at­ing the evidence that could have affected the outcome (no miscarriage of justice even if errors committed).

Criminal Law - Topic 4852

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Miscarriage of justice - An ac­cused appealed his convictions on the ground that, inter alia, the trial judge mis­apprehended material evidence - The Su­preme Court of Canada, in affirming dis­missal of the accused's conviction appeal, stated that "the misapprehension of the evidence must go to the substance rather than to the detail. It must be material rather than peripheral to the rea­soning of the trial judge. Once those hurdles are surmounted, there is the further hurdle ... that the errors thus identified must play an essential part not just in the narrative of the judgment but 'in the rea­soning process resulting in a conviction'. ... In our view, none of the errors urged by the appellant goes to 'the substance of material parts' of the evidence that bears on an 'essential part in the reasoning pro­cess' of the trial judge leading to the con­victions." - There was no error "in his appreciation of the evidence in a manner that could have af­fected the outcome" - See paragraphs 1 to 11.

Criminal Law - Topic 4957

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials -Grounds - Misapprehension of evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4852 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5020

Appeals - Indictable offences - Setting aside verdicts - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4852].

Criminal Law - Topic 5035

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - General - [See Crim­inal Law - Topic 4852 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. R.C. (1992), 49 Q.A.C. 37; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 417 (C.A.), revd. [1993] 2 S.C.R. 226; 153 N.R. 241; 55 Q.A.C. 63, refd to. [para. 8].

Counsel:

Shawn P. Buckley, for the appellant;

Kenneth Madsen, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

None disclosed.

This appeal was heard on December 10, 2004, before Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 10, 2004, Binnie, J., de­liv­ered the following judgment orally in both official languages for the Supreme Court of Canada.