R. v. Poirier (J.), (2000) 133 O.A.C. 352 (CA)

• Judge: McMurtry, C.J.O., Goudge and Borins, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: June 22, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2000), 133 O.A.C. 352 (CA)

R. v. Poirier (J.) (2000), 133 O.A.C. 352 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.049

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Joseph Poirier (appellant)

(C30203)

Indexed As: R. v. Poirier (J.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

McMurtry, C.J.O., Goudge and Borins, JJ.A.

June 22, 2000.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of being a party to an assault. He appealed his convic­tion.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 53

General principles - Protection against self-incrimination - Right to remain silent - The accused was convicted of being a party to an assault, as one of four people who chased and surrounded the victim - Martin (the person who struck the victim) and another accused, testified that the victim offered them drugs for sex and reached out and grabbed Martin's testicles - The accused did not testify - The jury asked the trial judge whether there was any evidence regarding the first time that any of the accused informed the police that the victim grabbed Martin by the testicles - The trial judge answered no - The Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a new trial - The trial judge should have cautioned the jury about the right to silence and explained that it applied to each accused.

Criminal Law - Topic 136

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to silence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 53 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4360

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding infer­ences from silence or admissions by si­lence or acquiesence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 53 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Coutts (S.) et al. (1998), 110 O.A.C. 353; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 545 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1999), 239 N.R. 193; 123 O.A.C. 199; 131 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. W.D.S., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 521; 171 N.R. 360; 157 A.R. 321; 77 W.A.C. 321; 34 C.R.(4th) 1; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Naglik, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 122; 157 N.R. 161; 65 O.A.C. 161; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 712; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 526; 23 C.R.(4th) 335; 17 C.R.R.(2d) 58, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Pétel (C.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 3; 162 N.R. 137; 59 Q.A.C. 81; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 26 C.R.(4th) 145, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Campbell (1977), 38 C.C.C.(2d) 6; 17 O.R.(2d) 673 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Chambers (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1293; 119 N.R. 321; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Lalande (A.) (1999), 124 O.A.C. 94; 138 C.C.C.(3d) 441 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Cones (G.) (2000), 129 O.A.C. 384; 47 O.R.(3d) 630 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Counsel:

James Stribopoulos, for the appellant;

Desmond E. McGarry, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by McMurtry, C.J.O., Goudge and Borins, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on June 22, 2000.