R. v. Roberts (J.N.), 2016 YKCA 3

• Judge: Donald, Saunders and Groberman, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory)
• Case Date: April 18, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Yukon
• Citations: 2016 YKCA 3;(2016), 386 B.C.A.C. 55 (YukCA)

R. v. Roberts (J.N.) (2016), 386 B.C.A.C. 55 (YukCA);

    667 W.A.C. 55

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AP.029

Regina (respondent) v. James Nathan Roberts (appellant)

(15-YU772; 2016 YKCA 3)

Indexed As: R. v. Roberts (J.N.)

Yukon Court of Appeal

Donald, Saunders and Groberman, JJ.A.

April 18, 2016.

Summary:

The accused appealed his conviction for sexual assault on the ground that, inter alia, the trial judge misapprehended his evidence and thereby negated his defence. The trial judge found that the accused effectively offered no defence; that he did not deny the alleged sexual assault but merely testified that he passed out and woke to the complainant screaming at him.

The Yukon Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The trial judge misunderstood the accused's testimony. The accused did not admit that he "passed out", as found by the trial judge. The accused testified that he did not go downstairs where the alleged sexual assault occurred. The court stated that "In misconstruing the appellant's testimony, the trial judge negated his defence and failed to address whether his explanation was capable of raising a reasonable doubt". The court commented on the rule in Browne v. Dunn and its often inappropriate invocation.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by a publication ban under s. 100 of the Family Law Act and Maritime Law Book's editorial policy.

Criminal Law - Topic 4957

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Misapprehension of evidence - See paragraphs 1 to 14.

Criminal Law - Topic 4957.4

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Misapprehension respecting accused's defence - See paragraphs 1 to 14.

Evidence - Topic 4716

Witnesses - Examination - Cross-examination - On testimony to be contradicted - See paragraphs 15 to 20.

Evidence - Topic 4726

Witnesses - Examination - Impeaching credibility - Duty to give witness opportunity to explain - See paragraphs 15 to 20.

Cases Noticed:

Browne v. Dunn (1893), 6 R. 67 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Drydgen (M.J.) (2013), 338 B.C.A.C. 299; 577 W.A.C. 299; 2013 BCCA 253, refd to. [para. 19].

Counsel:

V. Larochelle, for the appellant;

N. Sinclair, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 17, 2016, at Vancouver, B.C., before Donald, Saunders and Groberman, JJ.A., of the Yukon Court of Appeal.

On April 18, 2016, Donald, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court.