R. v. Frank

R. v. Frank

The court admitted the challenged out‑of‑court statements for threshold purposes but assigned little weight to Taylor's statement; it accepted Pottie's testimony and corroborating exhibits as sufficiently reliable and detailed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Frank counselled Pottie to commit specified offences against Ms. Chawner and Ms. Page, and accordingly convicted Frank on those counselling counts and the attendant probation/recognizance breach counts; counts lacking particularity, corroboration or evidence of serious inducement were dismissed or resulted in directed verdict acquittals.

Citation
2012 NSPC 48
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Robert Douglas Frank
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial — Verdict
Outcome
Partial conviction: accused guilty on Counts 1,3,4,5,11,13,14,15,16,17,18,19; acquitted/not guilty on remaining counts; directed verdicts granted on specified counts
Legal Topics
Counselling to Commit an Offence, Probation/recognizance Breach, Hearsay/principled Exception (kgb/khelawon), Directed Verdict, Jailhouse Informant (vetrovec)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Corrections/probation Counselling to Commit an Offence Probation/recognizance Breach Hearsay/principled Exception (kgb/khelawon) Directed Verdict Jailhouse Informant (vetrovec)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Robert Douglas Frank

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial — Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused counseled another inmate to commit multiple indictable offences
  2. 2 Whether statements by jailhouse informants and a detained witness (Taylor) were admissible and their weight
  3. 3 Whether breaches of probation/recognizance were established as collateral offences on each counselling count

Ratio Decidendi

The court admitted the challenged out‑of‑court statements for threshold purposes but assigned little weight to Taylor's statement; it accepted Pottie's testimony and corroborating exhibits as sufficiently reliable and detailed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Frank counselled Pottie to commit specified offences against Ms. Chawner and Ms. Page, and accordingly convicted Frank on those counselling counts and the attendant probation/recognizance breach counts; counts lacking particularity, corroboration or evidence of serious inducement were dismissed or resulted in directed verdict acquittals.

Court Disposition

Partial conviction: accused guilty on Counts 1,3,4,5,11,13,14,15,16,17,18,19; acquitted/not guilty on remaining counts; directed verdicts granted on specified counts

Orders

  • Convictions entered on Counts 1,3,4,5,11,13,14,15,16,17,18,19
  • Accused acquitted on Counts 2,6,7,8,9,10,12,20–32 (as specified in reasons)