R. v. Yadollahi, (1987) 19 O.A.C. 392 (CA)

• Judge: Martin, Lacourcière and Blair, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: March 13, 1987
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1987), 19 O.A.C. 392 (CA)

R. v. Yadollahi (1987), 19 O.A.C. 392 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Hossein Yadollahi

Indexed As: R. v. Yadollahi

Ontario Court of Appeal

Martin, Lacourcière and Blair, JJ.A.

March 17, 1987.

Summary:

The accused was convicted by a jury of sexual assault, contrary to s. 246.1 of the Criminal Code. The accused appealed from conviction.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, because of errors by the judge in his jury charge.

Criminal Law - Topic 673

Sexual offences - Sexual assault - Jury charge - In a sexual assault trial, the Crown improperly adduced evidence of the contents of a complaint made by the complainant - The accused did not object to this evidence - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was nevertheless under an obligation to instruct the jury to disregard the evidence or, at least, to expressly instruct the jury that the complaint was not evidence of the truth of its contents - See paragraph 5.

Criminal Law - Topic 4352

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding evidence generally - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that a trial judge in a sexual assault trial erred by failing in his jury charge to sufficiently refer to the evidence and to relate the evidence to the issues - The court held that merely stating to the jury that the evidence was fresh in their minds and had been reviewed by both counsel was insufficient - See paragraphs 6 to 7.

Criminal Law - Topic 4379

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions re evidence of character or credibility of accused - An accused was charged with sexual assault - The accused called evidence of his good reputation in the community for honesty and integrity - The case turned on the credibility of the complainant and accused - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury as to the use that could be made of the accused's character evidence, where such evidence was relevant to the issue of credibility and the improbability of a person of good character having committed the offence charged - See paragraphs 3 to 4.

Cases Noticed:

Azoulay v. The Queen (1952), 104 C.C.C. 97, refd to. [para. 6].

Counsel:

David Humphrey, for the respondent;

Bruce Durno, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard before Martin, Lacourcière and Blair, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal on March 13, 1987. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally by Martin, J.A., and released on March 17, 1987.