R. v. Robichaud (M.J.-G.), (2014) 415 N.B.R.(2d) 218 (CA)

• Judge: Larlee, Deschênes and Quigg, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: October 10, 2013
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2014), 415 N.B.R.(2d) 218 (CA);2014 NBCA 1

R. v. Robichaud (M.J.-G.) (2014), 415 N.B.R.(2d) 218 (CA);

    415 R.N.-B.(2e) 218; 1076 A.P.R. 218

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.027

Renvoi temp.: [2014] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.027

Martin Jean-Guy Robichaud (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(44-12-CA; 2014 NBCA 1)

Indexed As: R. v. Robichaud (M.J.-G.)

Répertorié: R. v. Robichaud (M.J.-G.)

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Larlee, Deschênes and Quigg, JJ.A.

January 9, 2014.

Summary:

Résumé:

The New Brunswick Provincial Court found the accused guilty of sexual assault (s. 271(1)(a) of the Criminal Code) and anal intercourse (s. 159(1)). The accused was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment on each conviction, to be served concurrently. He appealed and sought to adduce fresh evidence on the appeal. The Crown conceded at the appeal hearing that an acquittal should be entered on the charge under s. 159(1) as that provision's constitutionality was in question. An acquittal was entered without comment by the court on the constitutionality issue. The appeal proceeded on the sexual assault conviction.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal denied the motion to adduce fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3158

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to effective assistance by counsel - The accused and the complainant had sexual intercourse four times - The complainant asserted that she had only consented once - The accused was convicted of sexual assault - On appeal, he asserted that he had been prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel, occasioning a miscarriage of justice - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - For such an appeal to succeed, the accused had to establish that (1) counsel's conduct or omissions amounted to incompetence and (2) the incompetence resulted in a miscarriage of justice - Here, the allegation of ineffective counsel related to trial strategy - The accused's counsel decided not to introduce into evidence notes written by the accused and the complainant to each other before the offence occurred - From the affidavit by the accused's trial counsel that was solicited by the court, it was reasonable to conclude that counsel at the trial had assessed the pre-offence conduct and concluded that the notes had no probative value and were irrelevant to the issue of consent - It would be foolhardy to second guess trial strategy in the absence of compelling evidence of malpractice - The accused had not proven that he was prejudiced by counsel's decision or that he had suffered any other prejudice from that counsel's assistance - Defence counsel's conduct more than met the standard of reasonableness - There was no miscarriage of justice - See paragraphs 26 to 33.

Civil Rights - Topic 4620.1

Right to counsel - Right to effective assistance by counsel - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3158 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 675

Sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct - Sexual offences - Rape or sexual assault - Evidence and proof - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4970 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4377

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding credibility of witnesses - The accused and the complainant had sexual intercourse four times - The complainant asserted that she had only consented once - The accused was convicted of sexual assault - On appeal, he asserted that the trial judge had erred in finding the complainant to be credible - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - Absent palpable and overriding error, findings of fact and credibility deserved deference - There was no merit to the accused's objections to the findings of credibility made in the court below - The trial judge accepted part of the accused's evidence, but did not accept it on the salient points - It was the responsibility of a trier of fact to make such an evaluation - Despite the evidence of notes written pre- and post-assault by the complainant, the issue boiled down to whether the complainant changed her mind - The judge did not simply accept the complainant's testimony - He also assessed the testimony of the accused and expressly found that the offence had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt - Those findings had to stand - See paragraphs 14 to 25.

Criminal Law - Topic 4964

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Competence of counsel - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3158 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4970

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Receiving fresh evidence - General - The accused and the complainant had sexual intercourse four times - The complainant asserted that she had only consented once - The accused was convicted of sexual assault - On appeal, he sought to adduce fresh evidence consisting of handwritten notes between himself and the complainant that were written before the offence took place - The notes had been referred to during the trial, but were not produced as evidence - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal denied the motion to adduce fresh evidence - The notes dealt with the pre-offence conduct of the complainant and the accused - Without implicitly saying so, the trial judge had obviously considered this evidence to be irrelevant - The trial judge considered this to be a case of the complainant "changing her mind" - Pre-offence conduct had no relevance to the issue of consent - The handwritten notes did not meet the criteria of the Palmer test - They were available at the time of trial - Their content was disclosed through oral testimony - More importantly, the notes, if believed, could not reasonably have been expected to have affected the result - See paragraphs 6 to 13.

Practice - Topic 9031

Appeals - Evidence on appeal - Admission of "new evidence" or "fresh evidence" - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4970 ].

Droits et libertés - Cote 3158

Procès - Application régulière de la loi, justice fondamentale et audiences équitables - Affaires criminelles et quasi criminelles - Droit à l'assistance efficace d'un avocat - [Voir Civil Rights - Topic 3158 ].

Droits et libertés - Cote 4620.1

Droit à l'assistance d'un avocat - Droit à l'assistance efficace d'un avocat - [Voir Civil Rights - Topic 4620.1 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 675

Infractions d'ordre sexuel - Viol ou agression sexuelle - Preuve - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 675 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 4377

Procédure - Exposé ou directives - Jury ou juge seul - Directives concernant la crédibilité des témoins - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 4377 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 4964

Appels - Actes criminels - Nouveaux procès - Motifs - Compétence de l'avocat - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 4964 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 4970

Appels - Actes criminels - Pouvoirs de la Cour d'appel - Réception d'une preuve nouvelle - Généralités - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 4970 ].

Procédure - Cote 9031

Appels - Preuve en appel - Réception d'une preuve nouvelle - [Voir Practice - Topic 9031 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. C.M. (1995), 82 O.A.C. 68 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Roy, [1998] J.Q. No. 935 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Hurley (G.D.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 637; 401 N.R. 232; 350 Sask.R. 1; 487 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. McLaughlin (G.) (2013), 403 N.B.R.(2d) 358; 1045 A.P.R. 358; 2013 NBCA 28, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Chen (Y.M.) (2013), 398 N.B.R.(2d) 240; 1032 A.P.R. 240; 2013 NBCA 7, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. M.K. (2010), 364 N.B.R.(2d) 166; 937 A.P.R. 166; 2010 NBCA 71, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Goulette (L.F.) (2009), 350 N.B.R.(2d) 152; 903 A.P.R. 152; 2009 NBCA 49, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. G.D.B., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 520; 253 N.R. 201; 261 A.R. 1; 225 W.A.C. 1; 2000 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Chappell (D.C.) (2012), 324 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 223; 1007 A.P.R. 223; 2012 PECA 10, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Clark (D.M.), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 6; 329 N.R. 10; 208 B.C.A.C. 6; 344 W.A.C. 6; 2005 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Gagnon (L.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 621; 347 N.R. 355; 2006 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. R.E.M., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3; 380 N.R. 47; 260 B.C.A.C. 40; 439 W.A.C. 40; 2008 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. R.D.H. (2009), 360 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 930 A.P.R. 1; 2009 NBCA 28, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Vuradin (F.) (2013), 446 N.R. 53; 553 A.R. 1; 583 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. E.K.M. (2012), 391 N.B.R.(2d) 130; 1013 A.P.R. 130; 2012 NBCA 64, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Wilson (B.S.) (2013), 412 N.B.R.(2d) 100; 1070 A.P.R. 100; 2013 NBCA 38, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. J.N.C. (2013), 409 N.B.R.(2d) 310; 1062 A.P.R. 310; 2013 NBCA 59, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. R.P., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 746; 429 N.R. 361; 2012 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Cormier (R.J.) (2012), 393 N.B.R.(2d) 118; 1017 A.P.R. 118; 2012 NBCA 76, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Gardiner (J.I.) (2010), 362 N.B.R.(2d) 179; 934 A.P.R. 179; 2010 NBCA 46, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Smith (C.J.) (2012), 396 N.B.R.(2d) 367; 1024 A.P.R. 367; 2012 NBCA 99, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. O'Keefe (J.J.), [2012] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. Uned. 21; 2012 NLCA 25, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Banks (L.A.) (2012), 396 N.B.R.(2d) 325; 1024 A.P.R. 325; 2012 NBCA 80, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Dugas (L.E.) (2012), 322 N.S.R.(2d) 72; 1021 A.P.R. 72; 2012 NSCA 102, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Ogden (T.) (2013), 327 N.S.R.(2d) 203; 1036 A.P.R. 203; 2013 NSCA 25, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Gogan (D.) (2011), 309 N.S.R.(2d) 308; 979 A.P.R. 308; 2011 NSCA 105, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. J.P.B. (2013), 331 N.S.R.(2d) 166; 1051 A.P.R. 166; 2013 NSCA 73, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Lakas (S.P.), [2011] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 75; 2011 NBCA 67, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Ross (B.R.) (2012), 317 N.S.R.(2d) 243; 1003 A.P.R. 243; 2012 NSCA 56, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. G.M. (2012), 325 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 1009 A.P.R. 1; 2012 NLCA 47, revd. (2013), 444 N.R. 1; 337 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 354; 1047 A.P.R. 354; 2013 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. A.G., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 439; 252 N.R. 272; 132 O.A.C. 1; 2000 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 32].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Martin A. Goguen, for the appellant;

Rémi J. Allard, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 10, 2013, by Larlee, Deschênes and Quigg, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. On January 9, 2014, Larlee, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment in both official languages for the court.