R. v. Maman
Even accepting that parts of the complainant's narrative were incredible, the trial judge expressly believed the complainant as to the assault, found her injuries consistent with that account and contrary to the appellant's version, and therefore the conviction was not unreasonable and must be upheld.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C31453
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Alon Maman
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 11 May 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Credibility, Unreasonable Verdict, Evidence of Injury, Deference to Trial Judge
- 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
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Alon Maman
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction is unreasonable given alleged perjured or inconsistent testimony by the complainant
- 2 Whether the trial judge properly assessed credibility of the complainant and the appellant
- 3 Whether the evidence, including physical injuries, supported the conviction
Ratio Decidendi
Even accepting that parts of the complainant's narrative were incredible, the trial judge expressly believed the complainant as to the assault, found her injuries consistent with that account and contrary to the appellant's version, and therefore the conviction was not unreasonable and must be upheld.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Conviction and sentence upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Maman Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1999-05-11 Docket numbers C31453 Judges Finlayson, George Duncan; Weiler, Karen Merle Magnuson; Charron, Louise Vivianne Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 19990511 DOCKET: C31453 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) -and- ALON MAMAN (Appellant) BEFORE: FINLAYSON, WEILER AND CHARRON JJ.A. COUNSEL: Howard Borenstern, for the appellant Scott C. Hutchison, for the respondent HEARD: On appeal from the conviction by Marin J., dated July 22, 1998, and on appeal from the sentence imposed by Marin J., dated August 13, 1998. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant submits that the evidence of the complainant is so riddled with perjury that a conviction based on her testimony must be quashed as unreasonable. However, the trial judge was clearly alive to the frailties of the complainant’s testimony. She isolated and listed some seven events testified to by the complainant in the course of her narrative of what took place for the two days leading up to the assault. The trial judge described her account with respect to these incidents as “…simply incredulous when considered collectively against any standard of explicable behaviour”. [2] However, as to the assault itself, which was the only contentious issue upon which she found against the appellant, the trial judge expressly believed the complainant and disbelieved the appellant. She found supporting evidence to the complainant’s testimony by finding that the nature of the injuries that the complainant received was consistent with her testimony and totally at odds with the version of events as recounted by the appellant. [3] This is not an unreasonable verdict. A conviction was supportable on the evidence available to the trial judge. [4] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. “G. D. Finlayson J.A.” “K. M. Weiler J.A.” “Louise Charron J.A.”