R. v. T.T. and S.L., (1997) 103 O.A.C. 15 (CA)

• Judge: Labrosse, Doherty and Weiler, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: September 08, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1997), 103 O.A.C. 15 (CA);1997 CanLII 2234 (NS CA);1997 CanLII 2234 (ON CA);35 OR (3d) 641;117 CCC (3d) 481;14 CR (5th) 116;[1997] CarswellOnt 5434;[1997] OJ No 3579 (QL);103 OAC 15;35 WCB (2d) 464

R. v. T.T. (1997), 103 O.A.C. 15 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] O.A.C. TBEd. SE.029

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. T.T. and S.L. (appellants)

(C14389; C16020)

Indexed As: R. v. T.T. and S.L.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Labrosse, Doherty and Weiler, JJ.A.

September 8, 1997.

Summary:

The accused were convicted of one count of first degree murder and two counts of attempted murder. The three charges arose out of the same incident. The accused appealed. At issue was whether an out-of-court statement of a particular witness was admissible as evidence of identification of the accused, S.L., and whether the verdicts were unreasonable.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, quashed the convictions and entered acquittals.

Criminal Law - Topic 4361

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions re­garding identification - [See first Crim­inal Law - Topic 5241.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4865

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or un­sup­ported by evidence - The accused, S.L. and T.T., were convicted of murder and attempted murder following a shooting - Identification evidence of Q. and J.T. was admitted at trial, but there was no circum­stantial evidence - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the identification evi­dence of Q. was improperly admitted as substan­tive evi­dence - That left only the evidence of J.T. which the Court of Appeal found to be unreliable - Further, J.T., was not cred­ible - That being the case, the Court of Appeal held that no reasonable jury, acting in accordance with the law, could have con­victed either accused - The court there­fore set aside the convictions and entered ac­quittals on all counts - See paragraphs 96 to 155.

Criminal Law - Topic 4865

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or un­supported by evidence - Section 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code provided that an appeal court could set aside a verdict that was unreasonable or could not be sup­ported by the evidence - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the standard of review under s. 686(1)(a)(i) - The court stated, inter alia, that it is only in the clearest case where the result at trial can be said to be unreasonable such that appellate interven­tion is warranted - A verdict is unreason­able only where the appellate court is satisfied that the verdict is one that a prop­erly instructed trier of fact acting judicially could not reasonably have rendered - Con­victions based on eyewitness identification evidence are particularly well suited to review under s. 686(1)(a)(i) - See para­graphs 97 to 155.

Criminal Law - Topic 5020

Appeals - Indictable offences - Setting aside verdicts - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 4865 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5241.1

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Out-of-court identification - The accused, S.L. and T.T., were convicted of murder and attempted murder following a shooting - A police officer testified that Q., a wit­ness, had earlier identified S.L. from pho­tographs - At trial, Q., testified that the accused were not the shooters - The trial judge held that the police officer's evi­dence of Q.'s identification of S.L. was admissible to prove that S.L. was one of the shooters - The Ontario Court of Ap­peal held that the trial judge erred in ad­mitting Q.'s statement for substantive purposes and in instructing the jury that it amounted to evidence of the identification of S.L. as one of the shooters - Rather, the statement was admiss­ible only for the purpose of impeaching credibility - The erroneous admission also tainted T.T.'s conviction and standing alone constituted a reversible error - See paragraphs 10 to 95.

Criminal Law - Topic 5241.1

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Out-of-court identification - [See Evi­dence - Topic 1675 ].

Evidence - Topic 1675

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - Extra-judicial identifica­tion of accused from photograph - The accused, S.L. and T.T., were convicted of murder and attempted murder following a shooting - At trial a police officer testified that Q., a witness, had earlier identified S.L. from photographs - Q. testified that the accused were not the shooters - The trial judge held that the evidence of Q.'s identification was admissible to prove that S.L. was involved - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that there was no extant hear­say rule exception which would admit the police officer's evidence of Q.'s purported identification for its truth and there was no justification for creating a new exception - Further, the admission of Q.'s statement for substantive purposes could not be justified under the principles respecting prior in­consistent statements outlined in R. v. K.G.B. (S.C.C.), where the criteria of reliability was not met - See paragraphs 31 to 95.

Evidence - Topic 4751

Witnesses - Examination - Prior incon­sistent statements - Use of - [See Evi­dence - Topic 1675 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Langille (1990), 40 O.A.C. 355; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 544 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. F.J.U., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 764; 186 N.R. 365; 85 O.A.C. 321; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Hawkins (K.R.) and Moring (C.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043; 204 N.R. 241; 96 O.A.C. 81; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Deacon (1947), 89 C.C.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Toten (W.P.) (1993), 63 O.A.C. 321; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 5 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Evans (C.D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 653; 158 N.R. 278; 145 A.R. 81; 55 W.A.C. 81; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Khan (A.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92; 79 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Chahley (N.W.) (1992), 13 B.C.A.C. 213; 24 W.A.C. 213; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Alexander (1981), 145 C.L.R. 395 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Birkby, [1994] 2 N.Z.L.R. 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Sparks v. R., [1964] A.C. 964 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Christie, [1914] A.C. 545 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 35].

DiCarlo v. United States (1925), 6 F.(2d) 364 (2d Cir.), refd to. [para. 36].

Clemons v. United States (1968), 408 F.(2d) 1230 (D.C. Cir.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Miaponosse (A.) (1996), 93 O.A.C. 115; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 445 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. F.C. (1996), 88 O.A.C. 303; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 461 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 4].

R. v Swanston (1982), 25 C.R.(3d) 385 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Muldoon v. Herron, [1970] J.C. 30, refd to. [para. 45].

Jamieson v. H.M. Advocate, [1994] S.C.C.R. 610, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. McCay (1990), 91 Crim. App. R. 84 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. McGuire (1975), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 385 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Osbourne; R. v. Virtue, [1973] 1 Q.B. 678 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50, foot­note 5].

R. v. Golder; R. v. Jones; R. v. Porritt (1960), 45 Cr. App. R. 5 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 6].

R. v. Burke (1847), 2 Cox C.C. 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 7].

R. v. Letourneau (D.) and Tremblay (J.L.) (1994), 53 B.C.A.C. 81; 87 W.A.C. 81; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Haughton, [1990] O.J. No. 1807 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Viau, [1991] O.J. No. 475 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Moir (1974), 15 C.C.C.(2d) 305 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

United States v. Owens (1988), 484 U.S. 554, refd to. [para. 56].

People v. Gould (1960), 354 P.2d 865 (Cal. S.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

People v. Rogers (1980), 411 N.E.2d 223 (Ill. S.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Smith v. H.M. Advocate, [1986] S.C.C.R. 135, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Cameron (H.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 58; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 346 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. S.A. (1992), 59 O.A.C. 234; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 522 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Harvey (R.S.) (1996), 80 B.C.A.C. 40; 130 W.A.C. 40; 1 C.R.(5th) 155 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Rockey (S.E.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 829; 204 N.R. 214; 95 O.A.C. 134; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 72].

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; 46 C.R.(4th) 195; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 205, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Corbett (1973), 1 N.R. 258; 14 C.C.C.(2d) 385 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 59 C.R.(3d) 108; 17 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; [1987] 6 W.W.R. 97; 43 D.L.R.(4th) 424, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. P.L.S., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 909; 122 N.R. 321; 90 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 234; 280 A.P.R. 234; 5 C.R.(4th) 351; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Biddle (E.R.) (1993), 65 O.A.C. 20; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 430 (C.A.), revd. [1995] 1 S.C.R. 761; 178 N.R. 208; 79 O.A.C. 128; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Quercia (1990), 41 O.A.C. 305; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 380 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 99].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 686(1)(a)(i) [para. 97].

United States, Federal Rules of Evidence, 28 U.S.C. A., rule 801(d)(1)(c) [para. 57, footnote 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Article, Extra Judicial Identification (1960), 71 A.L.R. (2d) 449, generally [para. 56, footnote 9].

Carter, P.B., Hearsay: Whether and Whither (1993), 109 L.Q.R. 573, p. 579 [para. 30].

Cross and Tapper on Evidence (8th Ed. 1995), pp. 307, 308 [para. 35]; 586 [para. 58]; 587 [paras. 31, 58].

Deutscher, Leonoff, Identification Evi­­dence (1991), pp. 93-94 [para. 60].

Federal/Provincial Task Force on Uni­form Rules of Evidence, Report of the (1982), pp. 296, 297, 298, 299 [para. 31].

Libling, Evidence of Past Identification, [1977] Crim. L.R. 268, pp. 268 [para. 32]; 271, 272 [para. 38]; 277 [para. 45]; 469, 470, 471 [para. 60].

Mauet, Prior Identifications in Criminal Cases: Hearsay and Confrontation Issues, [1872] 24 Ariz. L. Rev. 29, generally [para. 56, footnote 9].

Morgan, Hearsay Dangers and the Appli­ca­tion of the Hearsay Concept (1948), 62 Harv. L. Rev. 177, generally [para. 57, footnote 11].

Paciocco, Stuesser, The Law of Evidence (1996), pp. 76, 77 [para. 31]; 78 [paras. 31, 65].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sydney N., Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), pp. 313, 314 [para. 31].

Weinberg, The Admissibility of Out-of-Court Identification Evidence in Criminal Cases (1980), 12 Mel. U.L. Rew. 543, pp. 553, 554, 555 [para. 60].

Wigmore on Evidence, vol. 4 (Chadbourne Rev. 1972), pp. 237-278 [para. 35].

Counsel:

Brian H. Greenspan and Sharon E. Lavine, for the appellant, T.T.;

Clayton C. Ruby and Jill Copeland, for the appellant, S.L.;

Jane C. Arnup and Susan L. Reid, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 8 to 10, 1997, before Labrosse, Doherty and Weiler, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Doherty J.A., released the following decision for the court on Septem­ber 8, 1997.