R. v. Proverbs, (1983) 2 O.A.C. 98 (CA)

• Judge: Dubin, Lacourcière and Houlden, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: October 31, 1983
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1983), 2 O.A.C. 98 (CA)

R. v. Proverbs (1983), 2 O.A.C. 98 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Proverbs

Indexed As: R. v. Proverbs

Ontario Court of Appeal

Dubin, Lacourcière and Houlden, JJ.A.

October 31, 1983.

Summary:

The accused was convicted before a judge and jury of possession of a shotgun for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. The police went to the accused's apartment to search it and to arrest him on a conspiracy charge. When they entered the apartment, the accused had a loaded shotgun. He claimed it was for self-defence, because he did not know who the police were and was afraid that they had come to harm him. The accused appealed from conviction.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the ground that the trial judge failed to relate the evidence to a clear definition of the law on the offence of the possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

Criminal Law - Topic 1439

Offences against the person and reputation - Firearms - Possession for dangerous purpose - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the elements of the offence of possession of a firearm for purpose dangerous to the public peace, particularly with reference to the formation of the unlawful purpose - The court stated that possession for self-protection was not for a purpose dangerous to the public peace - See paragraphs 3 to 6.

Criminal Law - Topic 4374

Procedure - Jury charge - Duty to relate law to facts - The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside a conviction and ordered a new trial on a charge of possession of a shotgun for purpose dangerous to the public peace, where the trial judge failed to relate the evidence to a clear definition of the law respecting the offence - See paragraphs 2 to 44.

Criminal Law - Topic 4633

Procedure - Mistrials - Grounds - Before a jury trial the Attorney General severely criticized publicly the actions of the police respecting the accused and also commented adversely on the accused's character, but said nothing about his guilt or innocence - The trial judge refused to order a mistrial, but forcefully admonished the jury to disregard out-of-court statements - The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to order a mistrial - See paragraph 49.

Criminal Law - Topic 4950

Procedure - New trials - Grounds - Misdirection by trial judge - General - The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside a conviction and ordered a new trial on a charge of possession of a shotgun for purpose dangerous to the public peace, where the trial judge failed to relate the evidence to a clear definition of the law respecting the offence - See paragraphs 2 to 44.

Evidence - Topic 3686

Documentary evidence - Videotapes - The accused wished to use a videotape of meetings with a police officer during his cross-examination of the officer - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge properly ruled that, if the accused wanted to show the videotape to the jury, it should be done as part of the defence when its authenticity and continuity could be established - See paragraphs 46, 48.

Evidence - Topic 4707

Witnesses - Examination - Cross-examination - Limitations - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that a trial judge is not obliged to permit unlimited cross-examination where there is no need for it and where there would be no practical result in allowing it to continue - See paragraph 47.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Flack, [1969] 1 C.C.C. 55, appld. [para. 5].

R. v. Sulland, 2 C.C.C.(3d) 68, appld. [para. 6].

R. v. Nelson, 8 C.C.C.(2d) 29, consd. [para. 27].

R. v. Stavroff, 48 C.C.C.(2d) 353, consd. [para. 30].

Counsel:

Clayton C. Ruby, for the appellant;

David H. Doherty, for the respondent.

This case was heard on June 29 and 30 and July 3, 1983, at Toronto, Ontario, before Dubin, Lacourcière and Houlden, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

On October 31, 1983, Dubin, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal: