R. v. Roasting (J.C.), 2016 ABCA 138
| Judge | Watson, McDonald and Schutz, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Alberta) |
| Case Date | May 06, 2016 |
| Citations | 2016 ABCA 138;[2016] A.R. TBEd. MY.030 |
R. v. Roasting (J.C.), [2016] A.R. TBEd. MY.030
MLB being edited
Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.
Temp. Cite: [2016] A.R. TBEd. MY.030
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Jared Chad Roasting (appellant)
(1503-0224-A; 2016 ABCA 138)
Indexed As: R. v. Roasting (J.C.)
Alberta Court of Appeal
Watson, McDonald and Schutz, JJ.A.
May 6, 2016.
Summary:
The accused appealed his conviction for discharging a firearm with intent to endanger the victims' lives on the ground that the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence.
The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Criminal Law - Topic 4865
Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence - The accused appealed his conviction for discharging a firearm with intent to endanger the victims' lives on the ground that the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence - The accused argued that " (a) The trial judge failed to properly consider the extreme intoxication of the eyewitnesses and its effect on the reliability of their evidence. (b) The trial judge erred by equating detail about the surrounding circumstances of the shooting, with detail and reliability of the identity of the shooter. (c) The trial judge erred by misapprehending and overemphasizing the recognition evidence in this matter. (d) The trial judge erroneously equated the complainant's certainty about identification with accuracy. (e) The trial judge misapprehended evidence which bore on the credibility and reliability of the key eyewitness, Keevin Shortneck." - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The trial judge properly cautioned himself on the frailties of eyewitness identification evidence - He extensively addressed the issue of the level of intoxication of the two witnesses - The verdict was not unreasonable.
Criminal Law - Topic 5241
Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Eyewitness identification - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4865 ].
Counsel:
D.A. Labrenz, Q.C., for the respondent;
G.M. Johnson, for the appellant.
This appeal was heard on May 3, 2016, before Watson, McDonald and Schutz, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.
On May 6, 2016, the following memorandum of judgment was filed by the Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Sandoval-Barillas, 2017 ABCA 154
...otherwise unreasonable identification evidence: see eg R v McCracken, 2016 ONCA 228, 348 OAC 267. As this Court said in R v Roasting, 2016 ABCA 138, 37 Alta LR (6th) 219, appeal courts tend to take a more penetrating view in identification cases. But this Court does not re-try them. As stat......
-
United States of America v Caro-Hernandez,
...2010 ABCA 359, citing R v DeCoste, 1983 AJ 140. [68] In R v Roasting, 2016 ABCA 138 at para 24, the Alberta Court of Appeal noted that “recognition evidence is a sub-species of identification evidence that can overcome conce......
-
R v AKB,
...appellate scrutiny than other findings of fact, particularly where the accused has testified denying the offence: R v Roasting, 2016 ABCA 138 at paras 21-22, 37 Alta LR (6th) 219 [Roasting]. [33] In my view, the trial judge fell into error in relyin......
-
R v Assefa, 2018 ABCA 6
...R v Cardinal, 2007 ABCA 43 at para 12, [2007] AWLD 2605.[16] Appellate review of identification tends to be penetrating: R v Roasting, 2016 ABCA 138 at para 21. Convictions based on eyewitness identification are particularly well suited to review under s 686(1)(a)(i), given the well-recogni......
-
R v Sandoval-Barillas, 2017 ABCA 154
...otherwise unreasonable identification evidence: see eg R v McCracken, 2016 ONCA 228, 348 OAC 267. As this Court said in R v Roasting, 2016 ABCA 138, 37 Alta LR (6th) 219, appeal courts tend to take a more penetrating view in identification cases. But this Court does not re-try them. As stat......
-
United States of America v Caro-Hernandez,
...2010 ABCA 359, citing R v DeCoste, 1983 AJ 140. [68] In R v Roasting, 2016 ABCA 138 at para 24, the Alberta Court of Appeal noted that “recognition evidence is a sub-species of identification evidence that can overcome conce......
-
R v AKB,
...appellate scrutiny than other findings of fact, particularly where the accused has testified denying the offence: R v Roasting, 2016 ABCA 138 at paras 21-22, 37 Alta LR (6th) 219 [Roasting]. [33] In my view, the trial judge fell into error in relyin......
-
R v Assefa, 2018 ABCA 6
...R v Cardinal, 2007 ABCA 43 at para 12, [2007] AWLD 2605.[16] Appellate review of identification tends to be penetrating: R v Roasting, 2016 ABCA 138 at para 21. Convictions based on eyewitness identification are particularly well suited to review under s 686(1)(a)(i), given the well-recogni......