R. v. Miaponoose (A.), (1996) 93 O.A.C. 115 (CA)

• Judge: Carthy, Austin and Charron, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: August 16, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1996), 93 O.A.C. 115 (CA);1996 CanLII 1268 (ON CA);1996 CanLII 1268 (NS CA);30 OR (3d) 419;110 CCC (3d) 445;2 CR (5th) 82;[1996] CarswellOnt 3386;[1996] OJ No 3216 (QL);32 WCB (2d) 161;93 OAC 115

R. v. Miaponoose (A.) (1996), 93 O.A.C. 115 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Allan Miaponoose (appellant)

(C19905)

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

Ontario Court of Appeal

Carthy, Austin and Charron, JJ.A.

September 20, 1996.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of sexually assaulting a minor and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. The accused appealed both the conviction and the sentence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused.

Criminal Law - Topic 5020

Appeals - Indictable offences - Setting aside verdicts - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - The 12 year old complainant was sexually assaulted while walking home through a field - Suspecting the accused, a police officer arranged to drive the accused by the com­plainant in a police van - The complain­ant, who had a limited view of the accused in the van, identified him as her attacker - She then identified him at the trial - No other evidence was presented linking the accused to the assault - The accused was convicted of sexual assault - The accused appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal where the pretrial identification procedure used by the police to identify the accused as the attacker was inappropriate - Accordingly, the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence.

Criminal Law - Topic 5241

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Eye witness identification - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5020 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5241

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Eye witness identification - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the inherent dangers and weaknesses in relying on eye-witness identification evidence - See paragraphs 9 to 37.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Biddle (E.R.) (1993), 65 O.A.C. 20; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 430 (C.A.), revsd. [1995] 1 S.C.R. 761; 178 N.R. 208; 79 O.A.C. 128, consd. [para. 14].

R. v. Smierciak (1946), 87 C.C.C. 175 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 686(1)(a)(i) [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Law Reform Commission of Canada Study Paper, Pretrial Eyewitness Identification Procedures (1983), pp. 7 [para. 9]; 10 [para. 11].

Counsel:

Marie Henein, for the appellant;

Roger A. Pinnock, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on August 16, 1996, before Carthy, Austin and Charron, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. On September 20, 1996, Charron, J.A., released the follow­ing decision for the Court of Appeal.