R. v. Sinobert (C.E.), (2015) 339 O.A.C. 336 (CA)

• Judge: Cronk, Gillese and Huscroft, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: April 23, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2015), 339 O.A.C. 336 (CA);2015 ONCA 691

R. v. Sinobert (C.E.) (2015), 339 O.A.C. 336 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. OC.014

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Charles Edward Sinobert (appellant)

(C56155; 2015 ONCA 691)

Indexed As: R. v. Sinobert (C.E.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Cronk, Gillese and Huscroft, JJ.A.

October 15, 2015.

Summary:

A jury found the accused guilty of second degree murder in the death of a woman who was stabbed 15 times, and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace. The accused appealed, arguing that (1) the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury because he did not relate the evidence to the issues at trial and the positions of the parties; and (2) the jury's verdict on second degree murder was unreasonable.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 113

General principles - Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - Intoxication - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4865 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1263

Murder - General principles - Intention - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4865 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1265.2

Murder - General principles - Jury charge - Second degree murder - [See second and third Criminal Law - Topic 1299 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1299

Murder - Defences - Jury charge (incl. intent and drunkenness) - Sinobert was charged in the stabbing death of his girlfriend (Taylor) - The case against Sinobert centred on the testimony of an eyewitness (Redbreast), who testified that she spent several hours drinking with the couple and awoke from a drunken state to see Sinobert stabbing Taylor - A jury convicted Sinobert of second degree murder - Sinobert appealed, arguing that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury because he did not relate Redbreast's evidence to the defence position by linking reasonable doubt to (1) Redbreast's impaired memory; (2) inconsistencies in her testimony; and (3) Redbreast's statements and conduct immediately after the stabbing - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The trial judge's charge, read as a whole, adequately related the frailties of Redbreast's evidence to the principle of reasonable doubt and equipped the jury to assess the reliability of her testimony - He noted that Redbreast was an alcoholic who became angry and forgot things when she drank - He referred to her criminal record and highlighted gaps in her memory - He described the inconsistencies between Redbreast's police statement, preliminary inquiry testimony and evidence at trial - He set out the defence position by reading verbatim from the text that counsel provided - See paragraphs 35 to 67.

Criminal Law - Topic 1299

Murder - Defences - Jury charge (incl. intent and drunkenness) - Sinobert was charged in the stabbing death of his girlfriend (Taylor) - The case against Sinobert centred on the testimony of an eyewitness (Redbreast), who testified that she spent several hours drinking with the couple and awoke from a drunken state to see Sinobert stabbing Taylor - A jury convicted Sinobert of second degree murder - Sinobert appealed, arguing that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury because he did not relate the evidence to the applicability of the intoxication defence on both forms of mens rea found in s. 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The trial judge referred extensively to the fact and magnitude of Sinobert's intoxication, including the pertinent police and expert evidence - His instructions on intent reminded the jury of the evidence respecting Sinobert's intoxication, directed the jury to take account of that evidence and "all of the other evidence relevant to intent", and expressly connected Sinobert's consumption of alcohol to reasonable doubt - The jury could have been under no misapprehension that the evidence of Sinobert's intoxication was directly relevant to the question of whether he had the necessary intent for murder - Defence counsel's failure to object to the trial judge's instructions at trial weighed heavily against Sinobert's claim - See paragraphs 68 to 89.

Criminal Law - Topic 1299

Murder - Defences - Jury charge (incl. intent and drunkenness) - Sinobert was charged in the stabbing death of his girlfriend (Taylor) - The case against Sinobert centred on the testimony of an eyewitness (Redbreast), who testified that she spent several hours drinking with the couple and awoke from a drunken state to see Sinobert stabbing Taylor - A jury convicted Sinobert of second degree murder - Sinobert appealed, arguing that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury because he did not relate the evidence to the applicability of the intoxication defence on the actus reus of the offence - He submitted that the trial judge's focus in his instructions on Sinobert's intoxication was on the issue of intent, and that this could have led the jury to presuppose the occurrence of the act itself - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - Reasonable doubt as to whether Sinobert in fact stabbed Taylor formed a critical plank in the defence case at trial - The trial judge repeated the defence assertion that Sinobert had been too drunk to stab Taylor - Further, Redbreast's account of the stabbing was the linchpin of the Crown's case - The flaws in her evidence were made clear to the jury - Since the jury could not have returned a guilty verdict without believing Redbreast's version of events, it followed that the jury accepted her testimony that Sinobert stabbed Taylor notwithstanding his severe intoxication - See paragraphs 90 to 99.

Criminal Law - Topic 4351

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 1299 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4356

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding intent or mens rea - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 1299 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4357

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding defences and theory of the defence - [See second and third Criminal Law - Topic 1299 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4377

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding credibility of witnesses - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 1299 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4393

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Failure by counsel to object - Effect of - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 1299 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4865

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - Sinobert was charged in the stabbing death of his girlfriend (Taylor) - The case against Sinobert centred on the testimony of an eyewitness (Redbreast), who testified that she spent several hours drinking with the couple and awoke from a drunken state to see Sinobert stabbing Taylor - A jury convicted Sinobert of second degree murder - Sinobert appealed, arguing that the jury's verdict was unreasonable given the unreliability of Redbreast's evidence and the clear evidence of his intoxication - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The jury was well aware of Redbreast's admissions that she was drunk on the night of the stabbing and that alcohol consumption affected her memory - Defence counsel and the trial judge both thoroughly canvassed the shortcomings in her evidence - It was for the jury to decide how much weight it would place on each memory lapse and inconsistency in her account - Further, the physical evidence was consistent with Sinobert having stabbed Taylor in the manner that Redbreast described - The evidence of Sinobert's intoxication was not such that a jury could not reasonably return a guilty verdict - Although there was evidence that his blood-alcohol levels were very high, there was also expert toxicological evidence that an experienced drinker would not necessarily have been rendered unconscious or dysfunctional at those levels - See paragraphs 103 to 115.

Criminal Law - Topic 5007

Appeals - Indictable offences - Review of verdicts - Where verdict based on findings of credibility - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4865 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. J.S. (2012), 296 O.A.C. 184; 292 C.C.C.(3d) 202; 2012 ONCA 684, dist. [para. 23].

R. v. Huard (S.G.) (2013), 311 O.A.C. 181; 302 C.C.C.(3d) 469; 2013 ONCA 650, leave to appeal refused (2014), 473 N.R. 395 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Stubbs (S.) (2013), 309 O.A.C. 114; 300 C.C.C.(3d) 181; 2013 ONCA 514, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Charles (T.) (2011), 280 O.A.C. 21; 270 C.C.C.(3d) 308; 2011 ONCA 228, leave to appeal refused [2014] S.C.C.A. No. 392, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. MacKinnon (T.N.) et al. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 258; 43 O.R.(3d) 378 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Saleh (F.) (2013), 314 O.A.C. 60; 303 C.C.C.(3d) 431; 2013 ONCA 742, dist. [para. 62].

R. v. Jacquard (C.O.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314; 207 N.R. 246; 157 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 462 A.P.R. 161, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Bouchard (S.) (2013), 314 O.A.C. 113; 305 C.C.C.(3d) 240; 2013 ONCA 791, affd. [2014] 3 S.C.R. 283; 464 N.R. 1; 327 O.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 64, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. W.J.D., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 523; 369 N.R. 225; 302 Sask.R. 4; 411 W.A.C. 4; 2007 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. M.A., [2006] O.A.C. Uned. 529; 214 C.C.C.(3d) 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Araya (N.), [2015] 1 S.C.R. 581; 468 N.R. 114; 329 O.A.C. 1; 2015 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 108].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 108].

R. v. Corbett, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 275; 1 N.R. 258, refd to. [para. 108].

R. v. W.H., [2013] 2 S.C.R. 180; 442 N.R. 200; 335 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 1040 A.P.R. 1; 2013 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Burke (J.) (No. 3), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147, refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. François (L.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 827; 169 N.R. 241; 73 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 109].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Watt, David, Ontario Specimen Jury Instructions (Criminal) (2003), generally [para. 23].

Counsel:

Frank Addario and Andrew Furgiuele, for the appellant;

Michael Bernstein, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 23, 2015, before Cronk, Gillese and Huscroft, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Cronk, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court on October 15, 2015.