R. v. Woodcock (L.R.), 2015 ONCA 535

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Judge: MacPherson, Simmons and LaForme, JJ.A.
• Citation: 2015 ONCA 535,(2015), 336 O.A.C. 322 (CA)
• Date: 17 July 2015

R. v. Woodcock (L.R.) (2015), 336 O.A.C. 322 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.016

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Louis Raphael Woodcock (appellant)

(C53297; 2015 ONCA 535)

Indexed As: R. v. Woodcock (L.R.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

MacPherson, Simmons and LaForme, JJ.A.

July 17, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was a member of one of two groups of young men who engaged in a gunfight on a downtown Toronto street. A 15 year old girl was killed when struck by a stray bullet. Four others were wounded. Although the accused owned the gun and his DNA was found on it, there was only circumstantial evidence that he, rather than another member of the group, actually fired the shots. The Crown's theory was that the two groups decided, before any shots were fired, to engage in a gunfight. A jury acquitted the accused of second degree murder, but found him guilty of manslaughter and four counts of aggravated assault. The accused appealed the convictions. The accused argued that the trial judge erred in (1) admitting expert evidence about how people carry and conceal guns in public; (2) failing to instruct the jury that the Crown had to prove their theory to establish causation; and (3) refusing to leave self-defence with the jury.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1242

Offences against person and reputation - Culpable homicide - Elements (incl. causation) - The accused was a member of one of two groups of young men who engaged in a gunfight on a downtown Toronto street - A 15 year old girl was killed when struck by a stray bullet - Four others were wounded - Although the accused owned the gun and his DNA was found on it, there was no direct evidence that he fired the shots - Earlier, another member had pleaded guilty to second degree murder as the shooter - The Crown's theory was that the two groups mutally decided, before any shots were fired, to engage in a gunfight, and that causation was established based on the accused being a significant contributing cause to the girl's death - The jury acquitted the accused of second degree murder, but convicted him of manslaughter and four counts of aggravated assault - The accused appealed on the ground that the trial judge misdirected the jury respecting causation - The accused argued that the jury should have been directed that the Crown had to prove its mutual decision theory to support a finding that his conduct was a "significant contributing cause" of the girl's death - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The directions to the jury clearly set out the positions of both the Crown and the accused on the "mutual shootout" issue and the jury's attention was properly focussed on how to determine the causation issue - See paragraphs 20 to 24.

Evidence - Topic 7000.4

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Admissibility - General - The accused was a member of one of two groups of young men who engaged in a gunfight on a downtown Toronto street - A 15 year old girl was killed when struck by a stray bullet - Four others were wounded - Although the accused owned the gun and his DNA was found on it, there was no direct evidence that he fired the shots - There was surveillance video of the accused before the shooting, showing him wearing a jacket, with his right or left arm occasionally out of the sleeve - The Crown called an expert to testify as to "recognition of the characteristics of armed persons" - The trial judge admitted the expert evidence, but did not allow the Crown to play the surveillance video for the jury or elicit an opinion from the expert as to whether the accused was carrying a concealed weapon in the video - Defence counsel cross-examined the expert on his observations of the accused in the video - The expert conceded that he could not tell from the video whether the accused was armed or not - The Crown was then permitted to play the video for the jury while re-examining the expert - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the accused's argument that the expert evidence should not have been admitted because it was a matter of common sense and the expert's assistance was unnecessary - The expert was permitted to testify about the physical properties of guns and how people carry and conceal them - The court noted that the trial judge limited the expert's testimony by not permitting him to testify whether the accused was carrying a concealed gun in the video, as the potential prejudice would outweigh the probative value of the evidence - There was no error in allowing the video to be played for the jury during re-examination - It was reasonable for the trial judge to allow both counsel to play the video for the jury in the course of their respective questioning of him - See paragraphs 7 to 19.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. J.S.R. (2008), 239 O.A.C. 42; 237 C.C.C.(3d) 305 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. J.S.R. (2012), 295 O.A.C. 315; 2012 ONCA 568, leave to appeal denied (2013), 447 N.R. 389 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Gauthier (C.), [2013] 2 S.C.R. 403; 445 N.R. 97; 2013 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Pappas (B.J.), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 452; 450 N.R. 37; 561 A.R. 228; 594 W.A.C. 228; 2013 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 29].

Counsel:

James Lockyer and Mindy Caterina, for the appellant;

Lucy Cecchetto, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 25, 2015, before MacPherson, Simmons and LaForme, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

On July 17, 2015, MacPherson, J.A., released the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.