R. v. Shirley (J.E.), (2002) 155 O.A.C. 210 (CA)

JudgeMoldaver, Feldman and MacPherson, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)
Case DateJanuary 29, 2002
JurisdictionOntario
Citations(2002), 155 O.A.C. 210 (CA)

R. v. Shirley (J.E.) (2002), 155 O.A.C. 210 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] O.A.C. TBEd. FE.064

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Jeffrey Earl Shirley (appellant)

(C34149)

Indexed As: R. v. Shirley (J.E.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Moldaver, Feldman and MacPherson, JJ.A.

February 21, 2002.

Summary:

The accused appealed his conviction by a jury of attempted murder. He argued that the trial judge made several errors in his jury charge.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 4375.5

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury - Directions re prior misconduct or convictions - The accused drug dealer allegedly shot a drug addict in a struggle during a drug deal - The accused was charged with attempted murder - The trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the use they could make of the accused's criminal record - However, the trial judge failed to make any mention of the victim's criminal record in the charge and the use the jury could make of the victim's admitted disposition for violence in assessing whether he, as opposed to the accused, was the initial aggressor in the incident resulting in the shooting - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the accused's appeal - This evidence went to the heart of the accused's defence that the victim was the initial aggressor and was relevant to the victim's credibility - See paragraphs 24 to 27.

Criminal Law - Topic 4377.2

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury - Directions regarding character of victim - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4375.5 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4392

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury - Directions re inferences of guilt (incl. consciousness of guilt) - The accused drug dealer allegedly shot a drug addict in a struggle during a drug deal - The accused was charged with attempted murder - The trial judge instructed the jury that if they found that the accused had deliberately lied and his explanation was found to be deliberately false, they could take that as evidence to consider with all of the rest of the evidence in determining the accused's guilt or innocence - The accused was found guilty and appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - Rejection of an accused's evidence could only be used as circumstantial evidence of guilt where there was independent evidence of concoction and there was none in this case - The court rejected an argument that the error occasioned no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice - See paragraphs 18 to 23.

Criminal Law - Topic 4399.1

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury - Direction re false statements by accused - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4392 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Coutts (S.) et al. (1998), 110 O.A.C. 353; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 545 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1999), 239 N.R. 193; 131 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Blazeiko (G.) (2000), 133 O.A.C. 123; 48 O.R.(3d) 652 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. McNeill (S.) (2000), 131 O.A.C. 346; 48 O.R.(3d) 212 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Scopelliti (1981), 63 C.C.C.(2d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Counsel:

Mark J. Sandler, for the appellant;

Gregory J. Tweney, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 29, 2002, before Moldaver, Feldman and MacPherson, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Moldaver, J.A., released the following decision for the court on February 21, 2002.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • R. v. Coombs (K.A.), (2003) 335 A.R. 217 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • April 4, 2003
    ...O.A.C. 380 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10]. R. v. Chartrand (L.) (2002), 167 O.A.C. 131 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10]. R. v. Shirley (J.E.) (2002), 155 O.A.C. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Authors and Works Noticed: Best, A., Wigmore on Evidence (2002 Cumulative Supp.), para. 987 [para. 10]. Sopink......
  • R. v. Zebedee (J.) et al., (2006) 212 O.A.C. 23 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • June 29, 2006
    ...[para. 83, footnote 2]. R. v. Douglas (C.) (2002), 166 O.A.C. 184; 62 O.R.(3d) 583 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 112]. R. v. Shirley (J.E.) (2002), 155 O.A.C. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Fair (J.E.) (1993), 67 O.A.C. 251; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 457 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 118]. R. v. Zinck (T.R.) (2......
  • R. v. Barra,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • August 18, 2021
    ...the cross-examiner’s suggestion: R. v. Zebedee (2006), 81 O.R. (3d) 583 (C.A.), at paras. 113-14, citing R. v. Shirley (2002), 155 O.A.C. 210 (C.A.), at paras. 15-16. [152]    When we apply these principles to the circumstances of this case, we are satisfied, as the tr......
  • R. v. Chartrand (L.), (2002) 167 O.A.C. 131 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • November 29, 2002
    ...505 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 10]. R. v. Scopelliti (1981), 34 O.R.(2d) 524 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10]. R. v. Shirley (J.E.) (2002), 155 O.A.C. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Titus, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 259; 46 N.R. 477, refd to. [para. 10]. R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • R. v. Coombs (K.A.), (2003) 335 A.R. 217 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • April 4, 2003
    ...O.A.C. 380 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10]. R. v. Chartrand (L.) (2002), 167 O.A.C. 131 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10]. R. v. Shirley (J.E.) (2002), 155 O.A.C. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Authors and Works Noticed: Best, A., Wigmore on Evidence (2002 Cumulative Supp.), para. 987 [para. 10]. Sopink......
  • R. v. Zebedee (J.) et al., (2006) 212 O.A.C. 23 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • June 29, 2006
    ...[para. 83, footnote 2]. R. v. Douglas (C.) (2002), 166 O.A.C. 184; 62 O.R.(3d) 583 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 112]. R. v. Shirley (J.E.) (2002), 155 O.A.C. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Fair (J.E.) (1993), 67 O.A.C. 251; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 457 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 118]. R. v. Zinck (T.R.) (2......
  • R. v. Barra,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • August 18, 2021
    ...the cross-examiner’s suggestion: R. v. Zebedee (2006), 81 O.R. (3d) 583 (C.A.), at paras. 113-14, citing R. v. Shirley (2002), 155 O.A.C. 210 (C.A.), at paras. 15-16. [152]    When we apply these principles to the circumstances of this case, we are satisfied, as the tr......
  • R. v. Chartrand (L.), (2002) 167 O.A.C. 131 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • November 29, 2002
    ...505 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 10]. R. v. Scopelliti (1981), 34 O.R.(2d) 524 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10]. R. v. Shirley (J.E.) (2002), 155 O.A.C. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Titus, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 259; 46 N.R. 477, refd to. [para. 10]. R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT