R. v. Manitopyes (J.V.), (2016) 480 Sask.R. 33 (CA)
| Judge | Richards, C.J.S., Lane and Whitmore, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan) |
| Case Date | June 16, 2015 |
| Jurisdiction | Saskatchewan |
| Citations | (2016), 480 Sask.R. 33 (CA);2016 SKCA 61 |
R. v. Manitopyes (J.V.) (2016), 480 Sask.R. 33 (CA);
669 W.A.C. 33
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2016] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.008
Joseph Vincent Manitopyes (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)
(CACR2464; 2016 SKCA 61)
Indexed As: R. v. Manitopyes (J.V.)
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
Richards, C.J.S., Lane and Whitmore, JJ.A.
May 5, 2016.
Summary:
The accused, Manitopyes and Pelletier, were charged with having committed four counts of robbery (counts 1, 3, 7 and 9), attempted robbery (count 5), four counts of wearing a mask while committing an offence (counts 2, 4, 6, and 8), theft of a motor vehicle valued in excess of $5000 (count 10) and possession of stolen property (i.e., the vehicle) (count 11).
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 395 Sask.R. 191, found Manitopyes guilty of counts 1 through 9 and count 11. Pelletier was found guilty of counts 3 through 9 and count 11. Counts 1 and 2 were stayed with respect to Pelletier for lack of evidence and count 10 was stayed in relation to both accused on the basis of the Kienapple principle. The accused filed separate conviction appeals. Manitopyes challenged the trial judge's use of similar fact evidence.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Editor's Note: The conviction appeal involving Pelletier is reported at (2016), 480 Sask.R. 56; 669 W.A.C. 56.
Criminal Law - Topic 5212
Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - General (incl. procedure) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5214.1 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 5214.1
Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - To prove identity of accused - The accused (Manitopyes) was involved in five robberies and convicted of a number of resulting offences - The accused appealed his convictions, challenging the trial judge's use of similar fact evidence to prove identity - The accused submitted that the trial judge erred in considering the evidence in relation to each of the robberies in determining the accused's guilt without holding a formal inquiry to determine whether the similar fact evidence was admissible - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by failing to determine the admissibility of the similar fact evidence; however, the impugned evidence was admissible as similar fact evidence in any event - Failure to hold the inquiry was not fatal - The accused was not prejudiced by the use of the evidence and no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred - Considering all of the evidence, the verdicts were reasonable and the appeal was dismissed - See paragraphs 14 to 43.
Evidence - Topic 1259
Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Similar acts - To prove identity - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5214.1 ].
Counsel:
Bob Hrycan, for the appellant;
Erin Bartsch, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on June 16, 2015, before Richards, C.J.S., Lane and Whitmore, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Lane, J.A., on May 5, 2016.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Character Evidence: Primary Materiality
...above in this chapter. 142 R v Butorac , 2013 BCCA 421, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2013] SCCA No 486; and see R v Manitopyes , 2016 SKCA 61 at paras 21–25. 143 Ultimately, the BCCA held that the use of the car was key to the Crown’s similar fact evidence theory, yet it did not have su......
-
R v Settle, 2021 ABCA 221
...in relation to the other counts unless there has been a ruling allowing the ‘cross-count’ usage of such evidence: see e.g. R v Manitopyes, 2016 SKCA 61 at para 16, 336 CCC (3d) 386; R v Rarru, [1996] 2 SCR 165 at para 1; R v C(PE), 2005 SCC 19 at para 1, [2005] 1 SCR [34] Referring to this ......
-
R. v. Bluecloud, 2021 ONCJ 349
...the evidence, and the focus remains on the similarity between the acts and the objective improbability of coincidence: R. v. Manitopyes, 2016 SKCA 61 at para [50] Where, as in this case, the accused is strongly linked to more than one of the acts, that unto its......
-
R. v. Pelletier (M.J.), (2016) 480 Sask.R. 56 (CA)
...2016. I. INTRODUCTION [1] Lane, J.A. : This conviction appeal was heard in conjunction with the conviction appeal of Joseph Manitopyes, (2016 SKCA 61). The appellants, Marcel Pelletier (in this appeal "Pelletier" or the "appellant") and Joseph Manitopyes, are co-accused who were jointly tri......
-
R v Settle,
...in relation to the other counts unless there has been a ruling allowing the ‘cross-count’ usage of such evidence: see e.g. R v Manitopyes, 2016 SKCA 61 at para 16, 336 CCC (3d) 386; R v Rarru, [1996] 2 SCR 165 at para 1; R v C(PE), 2005 SCC 19 at para 1, [2005] 1 SCR [34] Referring to this ......
-
R. v. Pelletier (M.J.), (2016) 480 Sask.R. 56 (CA)
...2016. I. INTRODUCTION [1] Lane, J.A. : This conviction appeal was heard in conjunction with the conviction appeal of Joseph Manitopyes, (2016 SKCA 61). The appellants, Marcel Pelletier (in this appeal "Pelletier" or the "appellant") and Joseph Manitopyes, are co-accused who were jointly tri......
-
R. v. Bluecloud,
...the evidence, and the focus remains on the similarity between the acts and the objective improbability of coincidence: R. v. Manitopyes, 2016 SKCA 61 at para [50] Where, as in this case, the accused is strongly linked to more than one of the acts, that unto its......
-
R. v. Amsel, 2017 MBPC 58
...accused to the acts, but there are circumstances where overlap will occur. [22] The R. v. MacCormack, 2009 ONCA 72 and R. v. Manitopyes, 2016 SKCA 61 decisions set out circumstances in which overlap between the similarity inquiry and the linkage inquiry is not only appropriate but unavoidab......
-
Character Evidence: Primary Materiality
...above in this chapter. 142 R v Butorac , 2013 BCCA 421, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2013] SCCA No 486; and see R v Manitopyes , 2016 SKCA 61 at paras 21–25. 143 Ultimately, the BCCA held that the use of the car was key to the Crown’s similar fact evidence theory, yet it did not have su......