R. v. Scott, (1984) 1 O.A.C. 397 (CA)
Judge | Dubin, Martin and Houlden, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (Ontario) |
Case Date | February 06, 1984 |
Jurisdiction | Ontario |
Citations | (1984), 1 O.A.C. 397 (CA) |
R. v. Scott (1984), 1 O.A.C. 397 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
R. v. Scott
Indexed As: R. v. Scott
Ontario Court of Appeal
Dubin, Martin and Houlden, JJ.A.
February 6, 1984.
Summary:
Sparrow appealed his murder conviction. During preparation for the appeal, the accused confessed of the murder to a student associate of Sparrow's lawyer. Sparrow's lawyer sought to introduce the student's affidavit as fresh evidence on appeal.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision unreported in this series of reports, refused to admit the affidavit but ordered a new trial on other grounds.
Sparrow and the accused were charge jointly with murder. The trial judge acquitted Sparrow but convicted the accused. At trial the student's evidence respecting the accused's confession was admitted into evidence. The accused appealed his conviction.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Criminal Law - Topic 4640
Procedure - Mistrials - Jury trial - Jurisdiction of judge to grant mistrial - During a jury trial, the courtroom lights went out - When they returned, the accused was seen scuffling with the police - The accused's counsel argued that a mistrial should have been ordered because the jury may have inferred that the accused was attempting to escape - The Ontario Court of Appeal refused to interfere with the trial judge's discretion, where he considered that the accused's behaviour was merely reaction and carefully instructed the jury to disregard the incident - See paragraphs 17 to 19.
Criminal Law - Topic 5353
Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Who is person in authority - A man appealed his murder conviction - During preparation for the appeal, an inmate confessed of the murder to a student associate of the appellant's lawyer - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that the student was not a person in authority - See paragraphs 3 to 9.
Counsel:
M.J. Neville, for the appellant;
H.J. Campbell, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard before Dubin, Martin and Houlden, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal, on January 23 and 24, 1984. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally by Dubin, J.A., and released on February 6, 1984.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. v. Hodgson, [1998] 2 SCR 449
...341; R. v. Wilband, [1967] S.C.R. 14; R. v. Downey (1976), 32 C.C.C. (2d) 511; R. v. Sweryda (1987), 34 C.C.C. (3d) 325; R. v. Scott (1984), 1 O.A.C. 397; Morris v. The Queen, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1041; R. v. McKenzie, [1965] 3 C.C.C. 6; R. v. Postman (1977), 3 A.R. 524; R. v. Sweezey (1974), 20......
-
R. v. M.C.H., (1998) 230 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...511 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35]. R. v. Sweryda (1987), 76 A.R. 351; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 325 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 35, 82]. R. v. Scott (1984), 1 O.A.C. 397 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37]. R. v. Morris, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1041; 27 N.R. 313; 26 N.B.R.(2d) 273; 55 A.P.R. 273, refd to. [para. 38]. R. v.......
-
R. v. M.C.H., (1998) 113 O.A.C. 97 (SCC)
...511 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35]. R. v. Sweryda (1987), 76 A.R. 351; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 325 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 35, 82]. R. v. Scott (1984), 1 O.A.C. 397 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37]. R. v. Morris, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1041; 27 N.R. 313; 26 N.B.R.(2d) 273; 55 A.P.R. 273, refd to. [para. 38]. R. v.......
-
R. v. C.S., 2006 NBPC 7
...relation to this aspect of the confessions rule. The burden should be an evidential and not a persuasive one. See, e.g., R. v. Scott (1984), 1 O.A.C. 397, at p. 399. John Sopinka, Sidney N. Lederman and Alan W. Bryant, in The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), at pp. 56-57, explain the diffe......
-
R. v. Hodgson, [1998] 2 SCR 449
...341; R. v. Wilband, [1967] S.C.R. 14; R. v. Downey (1976), 32 C.C.C. (2d) 511; R. v. Sweryda (1987), 34 C.C.C. (3d) 325; R. v. Scott (1984), 1 O.A.C. 397; Morris v. The Queen, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1041; R. v. McKenzie, [1965] 3 C.C.C. 6; R. v. Postman (1977), 3 A.R. 524; R. v. Sweezey (1974), 20......
-
R. v. M.C.H., (1998) 230 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...511 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35]. R. v. Sweryda (1987), 76 A.R. 351; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 325 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 35, 82]. R. v. Scott (1984), 1 O.A.C. 397 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37]. R. v. Morris, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1041; 27 N.R. 313; 26 N.B.R.(2d) 273; 55 A.P.R. 273, refd to. [para. 38]. R. v.......
-
R. v. M.C.H., (1998) 113 O.A.C. 97 (SCC)
...511 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35]. R. v. Sweryda (1987), 76 A.R. 351; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 325 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 35, 82]. R. v. Scott (1984), 1 O.A.C. 397 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37]. R. v. Morris, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1041; 27 N.R. 313; 26 N.B.R.(2d) 273; 55 A.P.R. 273, refd to. [para. 38]. R. v.......
-
R. v. C.S., 2006 NBPC 7
...relation to this aspect of the confessions rule. The burden should be an evidential and not a persuasive one. See, e.g., R. v. Scott (1984), 1 O.A.C. 397, at p. 399. John Sopinka, Sidney N. Lederman and Alan W. Bryant, in The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), at pp. 56-57, explain the diffe......