R. v. Nunes
Although the trial judge's charge was brief and could have more fully referenced evidence for each side, the case turned entirely on credibility which was diametrically opposed and the judge properly instructed the jury on credibility with an accurate W.D. direction; therefore the omission did not constitute...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C41693
- Parties
- Appellant: Alden Nunes; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 9 February 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Jury Charge, Credibility, W.d. Instruction, Appellate Review
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alden Nunes
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge failed to fairly outline the defence position in the jury charge
- 2 Whether any failure in the charge amounted to reversible error warranting appellate interference
Ratio Decidendi
Although the trial judge's charge was brief and could have more fully referenced evidence for each side, the case turned entirely on credibility which was diametrically opposed and the judge properly instructed the jury on credibility with an accurate W.D. direction; therefore the omission did not constitute reversible error and the appeal must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Nunes Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-02-09 Docket numbers C41693 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; Armstrong, Robert Patrick; MacFarland, Jean Louise Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20060208 DOCKET: C41693 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) –and- ALDEN NUNES (Appellant) BEFORE: LASKIN, ARMSTRONG AND MACFARLAND JJ.A. COUNSEL: Daniel Stein for the appellant Gillian Roberts for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: February 7, 2006 On appeal from the conviction entered on November 18, 2003 by Justice Norman D. Dyson of the Superior Court of Justice made at Toronto, Ontario. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] This appeal turns on whether the trial judge fell into error by failing to fairly outline the position of the defence. The charge was admittedly perfunctory. Although the trial judge did tell the jury the essence of the defence’s position and the Crown’s position, he might well have referred to the evidence supporting each side’s position in more detail than he did. [2] However, in our opinion, his failure to do so did not amount to a reversible error. In this case, the evidence of the appellant and the evidence of the police officers were diametrically opposed on every important issue. [3] Thus, this case turned entirely on credibility. This would have been clear to the jury. And the trial judge properly instructed the jury on credibility by giving an accurate W.D. instruction. [4] Overall, we are not persuaded that this is a case for appellant interference. The appeal is dismissed.