R. v. Woodford (S.E.J.), (2015) 322 Man.R.(2d) 100 (QB)

• Judge: Greenberg, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: October 27, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2015), 322 Man.R.(2d) 100 (QB);2015 MBQB 168

R. v. Woodford (S.E.J.) (2015), 322 Man.R.(2d) 100 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.011

Her Majesty The Queen v. Shayla Elyshia June Woodford (accused)

(CR 14-01-33521; 2015 MBQB 168)

Indexed As: R. v. Woodford (S.E.J.)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Greenberg, J.

October 27, 2015.

Summary:

Woodford was charged with second degree murder. She had stabbed her common law partner. She pleaded intoxication and self-defence. The Crown sought to introduce evidence of Woodford's convictions (based on guilty pleas) for three prior assaults on the victim and for two breaches of orders that prohibited her from contacting the victim. There was a period of 22 months between the last allegation of assault and the offence before the court.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench admitted the evidence of the prior convictions. The Crown established on a balance of probabilities that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect.

Criminal Law - Topic 5213

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - When admissible - The accused was charged with second degree murder - She had stabbed her common law partner - She pleaded intoxication and self-defence - Prior to trial, the Crown sought to introduce evidence of her convictions (based on guilty pleas) for prior assaults on the victim and breaches of orders that prohibited her from contacting the victim (prior discreditable conduct) - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench admitted the evidence - The convictions were probative of the legal character of the killing, which was the issue in this case - The question was whether weighing the probative value against the prejudicial effect favoured admission - The proposed similar act evidence was based on guilty pleas - The possibility of reasoning prejudice was low - Moreover, the risk of both moral prejudice and reasoning prejudice was less in a judge alone trial - The danger that the focus of the case would veer away from the charges was minimal - The fact that a judge must explain the reasons for convicting an accused provided a safeguard against improper reliance on the evidence of discreditable conduct - Considering the need for a context for the offence and the minimal prejudice that admission of the evidence would cause, the probative value exceeded the potential prejudicial effect.

Criminal Law - Topic 5449

Evidence and witnesses - Evidence respecting the accused - Character of accused (incl. discreditable conduct) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5213 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Handy (J.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908; 290 N.R. 1; 160 O.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Rochon (J.) (2003), 171 O.A.C. 64 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Hindessa (A.), [2009] O.T.C. Uned. M33 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Cudjoe (R.) (2009), 251 O.A.C. 163; 2009 ONCA 543, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Carroll (R.) (2014), 314 O.A.C. 281; 2014 ONCA 2, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Moo (K.S.) (2009), 253 O.A.C. 106; 2009 ONCA 645, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. T.B. (2009), 250 O.A.C. 177; 95 O.R.(3d) 21; 2009 ONCA 177, refd to. [para. 22].

Counsel:

Daniel P. Chaput and Shannon D. Benevides, for the Crown;

Ian P. McNaught and Hillarie A. Tasche, for the accused.

This voir dire was heard before Greenberg, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following ruling and reasons, dated October 27, 2015.