R. v. Omene (E.), 2012 SKPC 120

• Judge: Henning, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 20, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2012 SKPC 120;(2012), 401 Sask.R. 210 (PC)

R. v. Omene (E.) (2012), 401 Sask.R. 210 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. AU.005

Her Majesty the Queen v. Efe Omene

(Information No. 45562481; 2012 SKPC 120)

Indexed As: R. v. Omene (E.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Henning, P.C.J.

July 20, 2012.

Summary:

The accused was charged with three counts of theft.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty.

Criminal Law - Topic 5214

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - Where indictment includes several counts - The accused was charged with three counts of theft - Currency was alleged to have been taken from the wallets of three persons who each separately had their identification checked by the accused on the evening of March 26, 2012, and the early morning of March 27, 2012, in the course of his employment as a security person at a nightclub - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that similar fact evidence should not be considered in this case - This was not a case where evidence might be admitted as an exception to the ordinary rules of evidence to permit consideration of events and facts unrelated to the case being tried, but which might assist the court in considering a particular issue, such as identity - Special considerations applied in such a situation - The court stated that "evidence of three similar incidents that all occurred within a short period of time, that are tried together, do not represent an exception to the ordinary rules of evidence. This evidence is before the Court, and no ruling need be made to introduce it. When charges have been tried together, it is important to note that the Court must be careful to consider the evidence applicable to each charge, and consider whether the criminal standard of proof has been met with respect to each charge. However, the close time and location of the various offences, and the similarities in the manner of commission of the offences are facts that may be considered as relevant in the whole of the evidence on each charge. This is not to say the evidence of one charge is per se proof of commission of the others, but it may add or subtract from the credibility of other evidence given" - See paragraphs 31 to 32.

Evidence - Topic 1256

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Similar acts - To prove criminal conduct - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5214 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Shearing (I.), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 33; 290 N.R. 225; 168 B.C.A.C. 161; 275 W.A.C. 161; 2002 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Handy (J.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908; 290 N.R. 1; 160 O.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. J.C.B. (2011), 382 Sask.R. 267; 2011 SKQB 333, refd to. [para. 31].

Counsel:

Mitch Crumley and S.M. Syed, for the Crown;

Adam A. Fritzler, for the accused.

This matter was heard at Regina, Saskatchewan, before Henning, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on July 20, 2012.