R. v. Muller (T.I.), (2013) 348 B.C.A.C. 39 (CA)

• Judge: Donald, Garson and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: September 18, 2013
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2013), 348 B.C.A.C. 39 (CA);2013 BCCA 528

R. v. Muller (T.I.) (2013), 348 B.C.A.C. 39 (CA);

    595 W.A.C. 39

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JA.008

Regina (respondent) v. Terry Ian Muller (appellant)

(CA040254; 2013 BCCA 528)

Indexed As: R. v. Muller (T.I.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Donald, Garson and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A.

December 9, 2013.

Summary:

The accused was convicted by a jury of sexual assault. Consent had been in issue. During trial a doctor testified that vaginal tears were rare, even in sexual assault. Defence counsel objected, saying he had not been given notice of this evidence (which differed from the doctor's preliminary inquiry evidence), and further, the evidence lacked probative value and had a prejudicial effect. The defence moved for a mistrial. The trial judge refused to grant a mistrial, instructing the jury to disregard the evidence because of the lack of notice (i.e., failure to comply with the technical requirements of the Criminal Code). The accused appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Stromberg-Stein, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. Given the importance of the evidence, as acknowledged by the trial judge, it was an error for him to repeat the evidence and then to inform the jury that the reason they could not consider it, was a technical rule about notice requirements.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 4298

Procedure - Trial judge - Duties and functions of - To exclude inadmissible evidence - See paragraphs 91 to 105.

Criminal Law - Topic 4352

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Direction on evidence generally - See paragraphs 91 to 105.

Criminal Law - Topic 4385.1

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding inadmissible evidence - See paragraphs 91 to 105.

Cases Noticed:

Emkeit et al. v. The Queen, [1974] S.C.R. 133; [1972] 2 W.W.R. 597; 6 C.C.C.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. LaRose (R.A.) (1996), 70 B.C.A.C. 70; 115 B.C.A.C. 70 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Bengert (1980), 53 C.C.C.(2d) 481; 15 C.R.(3d) 114 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Griffin (J.) et al., [2009] 2 S.C.R. 42; 388 N.R. 334; 2009 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Forknall (P.C.) (2003), 176 B.C.A.C. 284; 290 W.A.C. 284; 172 C.C.C.(3d) 61; 2003 BCCA 43, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Graat, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 819; 45 N.R. 451; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 356, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 394, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Quashie (S.) (2005), 200 O.A.C. 65; 198 C.C.C.(3d) 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Steinbach (D.P.) (1998), 111 B.C.A.C. 231; 181 W.A.C. 231; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 208 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Aulakh (B.S.) (2012), 326 B.C.A.C. 177; 554 W.A.C. 177; 2012 BCCA 340, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. B.S.B. (2009), 280 B.C.A.C. 13; 474 W.A.C. 13; 2009 BCCA 520, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Perjalian (A.) (2011), 308 B.C.A.C. 232; 521 W.A.C. 232; 2011 BCCA 323, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Arnold (T.S.) (2001), 161 B.C.A.C. 148; 263 W.A.C. 148; 2001 BCCA 374, dist. [para. 51].

R. v. Khan (M.A.) (2001), 279 N.R. 79; 160 Man.R.(2d) 161; 262 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 86, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. D.C. (2009), 258 O.A.C. 50; 2009 ONCA 789, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Lawson (1991), 1 B.C.A.C. 204; 1 W.A.C. 204 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Paterson (D.R.) (1998), 102 B.C.A.C. 200; 166 W.A.C. 200; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 254 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Lising (R.) (2004), 193 B.C.A.C. 42; 316 W.A.C. 42; 2004 BCCA 33, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Erven, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 926; 25 N.R. 49; 30 N.S.R.(2d) 89; 49 A.P.R. 89, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Viszlai (J.G.) (2012), 330 B.C.A.C. 46; 562 W.A.C. 46; 293 C.C.C.(3d) 127; 2012 BCCA 442, refd to. [paras. 69, 94].

R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Trochym (S.J.), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 239; 357 N.R. 201; 221 O.A.C. 281, 2007 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 104].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cross on Evidence (5th Ed. 1979), p. 442 [para. 36].

Counsel:

B.B. Olthuis and W.D. McEwan, for the appellant;

M.A. Street, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, B.C., on September 18, 2013, before Donald, Garson and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on December 9, 2013, including the following opinions:

Stromberg-Stein, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 90;

Donald and Garson, JJ.A. - see paragraphs 91 to 105.