R. v. Merriman-Johnson (E.), 2015 MBQB 54

• Judge: Cummings, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: March 26, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2015 MBQB 54;(2015), 316 Man.R.(2d) 238 (QB)

R. v. Merriman-Johnson (E.) (2015), 316 Man.R.(2d) 238 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. AP.014

Her Majesty The Queen v. Eugene Merriman-Johnson (accused)

(CR 13-02-01294; 2015 MBQB 54)

Indexed As: R. v. Merriman-Johnson (E.)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Brandon Centre

Cummings, J.

March 26, 2015.

Summary:

The accused faced a total of 12 charges of assault, sexual exploitation and sexual assault, relating to six complainants. The offences were alleged to have occurred between 1984 and 2007 at the care home that was supervised by the accused. The accused applied under s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code for an order severing the counts. He sought six different trials and had elected trial by judge alone.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application in part, ordering one trial for the 10 counts (four complainants) on which the accused did not intend to testify and one trial for the remaining two counts (two complainants) on which the accused intended to testify.

Criminal Law - Topic 4737.1

Procedure - Information or indictment - Charge or count - Indictable offences - Severing counts in an indictment - The accused faced a total of 12 charges of assault, sexual exploitation and sexual assault, relating to six complainants - The offences were alleged to have occurred between 1984 and 2007 at the care home that was supervised by the accused - The accused applied under s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code for an order severing the counts - He sought six different trials and had elected trial by judge alone - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application in part, ordering one trial for the 10 counts (four complainants) on which the accused did not intend to testify and one trial for the remaining two counts (two complainants) on which the accused intended to testify - Other than the accused's intention to testify, the factors set out in R. v. Last (G.E.) (2009 S.C.C.) were either neutral or in favour of one trial - The accused's intention not to testify on 10 of the counts was objectively justifiable based on credibility concerns for each of those four complainants - There would be great prejudice to the accused if he was forced to testify at one trial - As the accused had indicated that he would testify on the remaining two counts, the Last factors favoured one trial.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Last (G.E.) (2009), 394 N.R. 78; 255 O.A.C. 334; 2009 SCC 45, appld. [para. 5].

R. v. Tam (C.K.), [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. H74; 1997 CanLII 4015 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. White (R.J.) (2014), 597 A.R. 71; 2014 ABQB 577, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. K.P. (2010), 291 N.S.R.(2d) 128; 922 A.P.R. 128; 2010 CanLII 185 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. J.C.B. (2011), 382 Sask.R. 267; 2011 SKQB 333, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Steele (A.) (2006), 223 B.C.A.C. 154; 369 W.A.C. 154; 2006 CarswellBC 529 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Counsel:

R. Lonstrup and K. Tschetter, for the Crown;

R. Harrison, for the accused.

This application was heard by Cummings, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Brandon Centre, who delivered the following judgment on March 26, 2015.