R. v. Thompson (I.S.), (2015) 360 N.S.R.(2d) 283 (CA)
| Judge | Fichaud, Farrar and Bourgeois, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada) |
| Case Date | May 29, 2015 |
| Jurisdiction | Nova Scotia |
| Citations | (2015), 360 N.S.R.(2d) 283 (CA);2015 NSCA 51 |
R. v. Thompson (I.S.) (2015), 360 N.S.R.(2d) 283 (CA);
1135 A.P.R. 283
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2015] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.049
Ivan Santell Thompson (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)
(CAC 418027; 2015 NSCA 51)
Indexed As: R. v. Thompson (I.S.)
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
Fichaud, Farrar and Bourgeois, JJ.A.
May 29, 2015.
Summary:
The accused was convicted of eight firearms-related offences based on circumstantial evidence and mug shot identification evidence by a police officer. The accused appealed his convictions on the ground that the verdicts were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence.
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Criminal Law - Topic 4865
Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - Police stopped a suspected impaired driver at midnight - While police attended to the driver, the front seat passenger exited the vehicle and fled - The police pursued him, but quickly lost sight of him - A shot was heard - Police quickly used a tracking dog, which led them to an apartment where the accused had entered with a gunshot wound to his abdomen - A resident took him to the hospital - A police officer, based on a digital picture of the accused, identified the passenger as the accused - The tracking dog found the handgun on the path taken to the apartment building - The accused was charged with eight firearms-related offences - The Crown's case, based on a police identification and circumstantial evidence, was that the accused was the passenger who fled and that he accidentally shot himself while traversing unfamiliar terrain in the dark - The accused offered alternate explanations for how he got shot - The trial judge found the accused guilty - The accused appealed his convictions on the ground that the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The trial judge properly cautioned herself on convicting based on eye witness identification and circumstantial evidence - The Crown's theory, accepted by the trial judge, was the only rational conclusion on the whole of the evidence - The accused possessed several distinct facial features which the officer identified - The accused's alternate explanations invited the court to engage in speculation and conjecture, which the trial judge rightly rejected - The trial judge did not err in convicting the accused based on the strong circumstantial evidence - See paragraphs 63 to 116.
Criminal Law - Topic 5241
Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Eyewitness identification - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4865 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 5320.2
Evidence and witnesses - Inferences - From circumstantial evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4865 ].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Henderson (H.A.) (2012), 317 N.S.R.(2d) 164; 1003 A.P.R. 164; 2012 NSCA 53, refd to. [para. 59].
R. v. Sykes (K.C.) (2014), 346 N.S.R.(2d) 44; 1095 A.P.R. 44; 2014 NSCA 57, refd to. [para. 60].
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. 61].
R. v. Barrett (J.R.) (2004), 222 N.S.R.(2d) 182; 701 A.P.R. 182; 2004 NSCA 38, refd to. [para. 64].
R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. 66].
R. v. Atfield (1983), 42 A.R. 294; 1983 ABCA 44, refd to. [para. 67].
R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 69].
R. v. Weagle (J.) (2008), 272 N.S.R.(2d) 335; 869 A.P.R. 335; 2008 NSCA 122, refd to. [para. 73].
R. v. Hoben, 2009 NSCA 27, refd to. [para. 75].
R. v. R.P. (2012), 429 N.R. 361; 2012 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 80].
R. v. White (G.) (1994), 130 N.S.R.(2d) 143; 367 A.P.R. 143; 1994 NSCA 77, refd to. [para. 92].
R. v. Eastgaard (H.J.) (2011), 510 A.R. 117; 527 W.A.C. 117; 2011 ABCA 152, affd. (2012), 428 N.R. 200; 2012 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 92].
R. v. Tahirsylaj (Y.) (2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 13; 631 W.A.C. 13; 2015 BCCA 7, refd to. [para. 93].
R. v. Paul, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 181; 4 N.R. 435, refd to. [para. 93].
R. v. R.S. (2014), 353 N.S.R.(2d) 209; 1115 A.P.R. 209; 2014 NSCA 105, refd to. [para. 109].
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. 111].
R. v. Dow (S.V.) (2013), 336 N.S.R.(2d) 19; 1063 A.P.R. 19; 2013 NSCA 111, refd to. [para. 112].
Counsel:
Appellant in person;
Marian Fortune-Stone, Q.C., for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on March 30, 2015, at Halifax, N.S., before Fichaud, Farrar and Bourgeois, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.
On May 29, 2015, Farrar, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Bou-Daher (J.), (2015) 366 N.S.R.(2d) 241 (CA)
...218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. 41]. R. v. Paul, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 181; 4 N.R. 435, refd to. [para. 42]. R. v. Thompson (I.S.) (2015), 360 N.S.R.(2d) 283; 1135 A.P.R. 283; 2015 NSCA 51, refd to. [para. R. v. Seymour (R.E.) (2005), 229 N.S.R.(2d) 249; 725 A.P.R. 249; 2005 NSCA 5, refd to.......
-
R. v. Coburn,
...is understandable given the high degree of deference accorded to trial judges’ credibility findings. As this Court said in R. v. Thompson, 2015 NSCA 51: [80] As stated in R. v. R.P., 2012 SCC 22, ¶10, an appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge’s credibility assessments excep......
-
R. v. Thompson,
...3 S.C.R. 320 ; see also R. v. Wilson, 2013 NBCA 38 , at para. 28. [16] Wilson, at para. 29 [17] Lifchus, at para. 31 [18] R. v. Thompson, 2015 NSCA 51, at para. 92. [19] R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 [20] W.(D.), at para. 11. [21] R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24 . [22] Dinardo, at para. ......
-
R. v. Roberts, 2020 NSCA 20
...Code authorizes the Court to allow an appeal if a verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence. In R. v. Thompson, 2015 NSCA 51, this Court described the [60] In assessing whether a verdict is unreasonable, an appellate court must: i. determine whether the verdict is one t......
-
R. v. Bou-Daher (J.), (2015) 366 N.S.R.(2d) 241 (CA)
...218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. 41]. R. v. Paul, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 181; 4 N.R. 435, refd to. [para. 42]. R. v. Thompson (I.S.) (2015), 360 N.S.R.(2d) 283; 1135 A.P.R. 283; 2015 NSCA 51, refd to. [para. R. v. Seymour (R.E.) (2005), 229 N.S.R.(2d) 249; 725 A.P.R. 249; 2005 NSCA 5, refd to.......
-
R. v. Coburn,
...is understandable given the high degree of deference accorded to trial judges’ credibility findings. As this Court said in R. v. Thompson, 2015 NSCA 51: [80] As stated in R. v. R.P., 2012 SCC 22, ¶10, an appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge’s credibility assessments excep......
-
R. v. Thompson,
...3 S.C.R. 320 ; see also R. v. Wilson, 2013 NBCA 38 , at para. 28. [16] Wilson, at para. 29 [17] Lifchus, at para. 31 [18] R. v. Thompson, 2015 NSCA 51, at para. 92. [19] R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 [20] W.(D.), at para. 11. [21] R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24 . [22] Dinardo, at para. ......
-
R. v. Roberts, 2020 NSCA 20
...Code authorizes the Court to allow an appeal if a verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence. In R. v. Thompson, 2015 NSCA 51, this Court described the [60] In assessing whether a verdict is unreasonable, an appellate court must: i. determine whether the verdict is one t......