R. v. Murphy (A.), 2012 ONCA 573

JudgeLaskin, Rosenberg and Watt, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)
Case DateSeptember 05, 2012
JurisdictionOntario
Citations2012 ONCA 573;(2012), 295 O.A.C. 281 (CA)

R. v. Murphy (A.) (2012), 295 O.A.C. 281 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] O.A.C. TBEd. SE.013

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Andrew Murphy (appellant)

(C52369; 2012 ONCA 573)

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

Ontario Court of Appeal

Laskin, Rosenberg and Watt, JJ.A.

September 5, 2012.

Summary:

The accused was convicted by a jury of a firearms and drug offences. He was sentenced to imprisonment for six years and five months, less 52 months' credit for pre-trial custody. The accused appealed on the ground that the trial judge erred in refusing to allow him to call a witness who was expected to admit culpability for the offences charged.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 5214.8

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - That crime committed by another - The accused was convicted by a jury of a firearms and drug offences - The trial judge refused to allow the accused to call a witness who was expected to testify that the gun and narcotics found in the residence belonged to him, not the accused - The judge ruled the evidence inadmissible because "there is no evidence linking the third party suspect to the crime" - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in not permitting the witness to testify - The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered - The court stated that "the defence has always been permitted to call or adduce evidence that some other person committed the crime with which the accused has been charged. However, before this third party or alternate suspect evidence can be admitted, the accused bears the onus of showing that the proposed evidence has 'some nexus with the alleged offence'. Without the nexus, the evidence would lack probative value. ... I accept the Crown's submission that the requirement to show some nexus or connection between the third party and the offences applies whether the proposed evidence is direct or circumstantial or a combination of both. In all cases, the connection gives the proposed evidence its probative value. ... However, where the defence proposes to call direct evidence from another person taking responsibility for the crimes charged, that proposed evidence itself constitutes a sufficient nexus or connection. Nothing more need be shown and no formal application is necessary." - See paragraphs 19, 24, 25.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Clarke (H.E.) (1998), 112 O.A.C. 233; 18 C.R.(5th) 219; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. McMillan (1975), 7 O.R.(2d) 759 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Grandinetti (C.H.) (2005), 329 N.R. 28; 363 A.R. 1; 343 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Candir (E.) (2009), 257 O.A.C. 119; 2009 ONCA 915, refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

Dirk Derstine and Mariya Yakusheva, for the appellant;

Rick Visca, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 23, 2012, before Laskin, Rosenberg and Watt, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Laskin, J.A., and released on September 5, 2012.

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • R. v. Grant (M.E.), (2015) 315 Man.R.(2d) 259 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 14 Noviembre 2014
    ...R. v. Brousseau, 2006 QCCA 858, refd to. [para. 33]. State v. Sullivan (1998), 216 Wis.2d 768, refd to. [para. 38]. R. v. Murphy (A.) (2012), 295 O.A.C. 281; 2012 ONCA 573, refd to. [para. R. v. Underwood (G.R.) (2002), 320 A.R. 151; 288 W.A.C. 151; 170 C.C.C.(3d) 500; 2002 ABCA 310, refd t......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Ethics and Criminal Law. Second Edition
    • 19 Junio 2015
    ...R v Murphy (1994), 114 Nfld & PEIR 148, [1994] NJ No 23 (CA) .....................416 R v Murphy, 2012 ONCA 573 ..............................................................................331 R v Murray (2000), 48 OR (3d) 544, 144 CCC (3d) 289, [2000] OJ No 685 (SCJ) ...........................
  • R. v. Grant (M.E.), (2015) 468 N.R. 83 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 14 Noviembre 2014
    ...R. v. Brousseau, 2006 QCCA 858, refd to. [para. 33]. State v. Sullivan (1998), 216 Wis.2d 768, refd to. [para. 38]. R. v. Murphy (A.) (2012), 295 O.A.C. 281; 2012 ONCA 573, refd to. [para. R. v. Underwood (G.R.) (2002), 320 A.R. 151; 288 W.A.C. 151; 170 C.C.C.(3d) 500; 2002 ABCA 310, refd t......
  • Client Perjury
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Ethics and Criminal Law. Second Edition
    • 19 Junio 2015
    ...63 CCC (3d) 481 at 505–7 [paras 33–36] (SCC) [ Swain ]. 8 See R v Seaboyer (1991), 66 CCC (3d) 321 at 389 [para 34] (SCC); R v Murphy , 2012 ONCA 573 at paras 16–25; R v Bishop , 2013 NUCA 3 at para 51. 9 See R v Brigham (1992), 79 CCC (3d) 365 at 380–83 and 390–91 (Que CA) [ Brigham ]; R v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • R. v. Grant (M.E.), (2015) 315 Man.R.(2d) 259 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 14 Noviembre 2014
    ...R. v. Brousseau, 2006 QCCA 858, refd to. [para. 33]. State v. Sullivan (1998), 216 Wis.2d 768, refd to. [para. 38]. R. v. Murphy (A.) (2012), 295 O.A.C. 281; 2012 ONCA 573, refd to. [para. R. v. Underwood (G.R.) (2002), 320 A.R. 151; 288 W.A.C. 151; 170 C.C.C.(3d) 500; 2002 ABCA 310, refd t......
  • R. v. Grant (M.E.), (2015) 468 N.R. 83 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 14 Noviembre 2014
    ...R. v. Brousseau, 2006 QCCA 858, refd to. [para. 33]. State v. Sullivan (1998), 216 Wis.2d 768, refd to. [para. 38]. R. v. Murphy (A.) (2012), 295 O.A.C. 281; 2012 ONCA 573, refd to. [para. R. v. Underwood (G.R.) (2002), 320 A.R. 151; 288 W.A.C. 151; 170 C.C.C.(3d) 500; 2002 ABCA 310, refd t......
  • R. v. Grant (M.E.), [2015] N.R. TBEd. MR.001
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 5 Marzo 2015
    ...the Seaboyer admissibility test: do the prejudicial effects substantially outweigh the probative value? (See, for example R. v. Murphy , 2012 ONCA 573, 295 O.A.C. 281 (third party suspect evidence); R. v. Underwood , 2002 ABCA 310, 170 C.C.C. (3d) 500 (hearsay evidence of a third party susp......
  • R. v. Hudson,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • 2 Noviembre 2021
    ...evidence. Absent such a nexus, the disposition evidence would lack any probative value: McMillan, at p. 758; R. v.  Murphy, 2012 ONCA 573, 292 C.C.C. (3d) 122, at para. [190]    To put the third party or alternate suspect issue in play at a criminal trial, the defen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Ethics and Criminal Law. Second Edition
    • 19 Junio 2015
    ...R v Murphy (1994), 114 Nfld & PEIR 148, [1994] NJ No 23 (CA) .....................416 R v Murphy, 2012 ONCA 573 ..............................................................................331 R v Murray (2000), 48 OR (3d) 544, 144 CCC (3d) 289, [2000] OJ No 685 (SCJ) ...........................
  • Client Perjury
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Ethics and Criminal Law. Second Edition
    • 19 Junio 2015
    ...63 CCC (3d) 481 at 505–7 [paras 33–36] (SCC) [ Swain ]. 8 See R v Seaboyer (1991), 66 CCC (3d) 321 at 389 [para 34] (SCC); R v Murphy , 2012 ONCA 573 at paras 16–25; R v Bishop , 2013 NUCA 3 at para 51. 9 See R v Brigham (1992), 79 CCC (3d) 365 at 380–83 and 390–91 (Que CA) [ Brigham ]; R v......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT