R. v. Muise (V.D.J.), (2016) 373 N.S.R.(2d) 309 (CA)

• Judge: Scanlan, Hamilton and Van den Eynden, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: May 04, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2016), 373 N.S.R.(2d) 309 (CA);2016 NSCA 34

R. v. Muise (V.D.J.) (2016), 373 N.S.R.(2d) 309 (CA);

    1175 A.P.R. 309

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.005

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Victor Daniel Joseph Muise (respondent)

(CAC 438457; 2016 NSCA 34)

Indexed As: R. v. Muise (V.D.J.)

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Scanlan, Hamilton and Van den Eynden, JJ.A.

May 4, 2016.

Summary:

The accused was acquitted of robbing a bank. The trial judge was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was proven to be the person who robbed the bank. The Crown's appeal from the acquittal under s. 676(1)(a) of the Criminal Code was limited to a "question of law". The Crown argued that the trial judge erred in law by subjecting individual pieces of evidence to the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt rather than considering the evidence as a whole to determine guilt or innocence.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Scanlan, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The trial judge correctly considered the evidence as a whole in rendering a verdict. Although the trial judge "suspected" that the accused was the robber, he did not err in finding that the evidence did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Criminal Law - Topic 4351

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Direction regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt - The accused was acquitted of robbing a bank - The robber presented a note to the teller and left with cash containing a red dye pack that exploded when the bank was exited - Several hours after the robbery, the accused paid a pharmacy debt using bills marked with red dye - The serial numbers of the bills used in the pharmacy matched the serial numbers of the stolen bills - There was red dye on the accused's hands and the note to the teller had the accused's DNA on it - The police initially suspected two other persons known to them - The teller was 90-95% sure in identifying the accused from a photo line-up, but the last numbers of the accused's bank card were different from the numbers the teller saw - The clothes worn by the robber were not found at his residence - The trial judge found the teller's identification evidence unreliable and was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was proven to be the person who robbed the bank - The Crown's appeal from the acquittal under s. 676(1)(a) of the Criminal Code was limited to a "question of law" - The Crown argued that the trial judge erred in law by subjecting individual pieces of evidence to the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt rather than considering the evidence as a whole to determine guilt or innocence - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The trial judge correctly considered the evidence as a whole in rendering a verdict - Although the trial judge "suspected" that the accused was the robber, he did not err in finding that the evidence did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - The trial judge properly cautioned himself that he had to determine guilt or innocence on "the evidence cumulatively and as a whole" and applied the law correctly - No piece of evidence was considered in isolation - See paragraphs 43 to 61.

Criminal Law - Topic 4860

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Question of law or error of law - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4351 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4975

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Appeal from an acquittal - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4351 ].

Counsel:

Mark Scott, Q.C., for the appellant;

Luke Craggs, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 8, 2016, at Halifax, N.S., before Scanlan, Hamilton and Van den Eynden, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

On May 4, 2016, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Scanlan, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 42;

Hamilton, J.A. (Van den Eynden, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 43 to 61.