R. v. Manzo

R. v. Manzo Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2024-04-17 Neutral citation 2024 ONCA 290 Docket numbers COA-23-CR-0999 Judges Trotter, Gary T.; Harvison Young, Alison; Copeland, Jill M. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Manzo, 2024 ONCA 290 DATE: 20240417 DOCKET: COA-23-CR-0999 Trotter, Harvison Young and Copeland JJ.A. BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Antonio Manzo Appellant Dan Stein, for the appellant Lilly Gates, for the respondent Heard: April 16, 2024 On appeal from the convictions entered on April 21, 2023 and the sentence imposed on June 29, 2023 by Justice F. Bruce Fitzpatrick of the Superior Court of Justice, with reasons reported at 2023 ONSC 2458 and 2023 ONSC 3931. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant appeals from convictions for offences arising out of an incident during which shots were fired at a pick-up truck parked in a rural area near Kenora. No one was in the truck when the shots were fired. [2] The case against the appellant was circumstantial. The central issues at trial were whether the appellant was the perpetrator, when the shots were fired at the truck, and the continuity of exhibits, in particular, firearm and shell-casing exhibits. The continuity issue bore on the Crown’s circumstantial case that the appellant was the perpetrator. [3] The appellant argues that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence in relation to whether shell casings found at the scene were fired from a .22 calibre Ruger rifle seized from the appellant’s vehicle the day after the shooting incident. In particular, he argues that the trial judge failed to advert to particular alleged problems with the continuity of shell casings sent for forensic testing. The misapprehension alleged is a failure to refer to evidence, not a misstatement of evidence. [4] We are not persuaded by this argument. The reasons of the trial judge make clear that he was alive to the arguments made by the appellant in relation to the continuity of exhibits, including the shell casings. The trial judge specifically referred to the appellant’s challenge to the continuity of exhibits. He summarized in detail the evidence from the police officers who testified at trial on the issue of continuity. Having considered all of the evidence bearing on continuity, the trial judge concluded: I have no reason to doubt that the one casing upon which Mr. Staniek [the Crown’s forensic toolmark expert] opined was located by OPP officers on May 12, 2020 near the gate of the McKenzie property at [number omitted] Birch Grove Road. I do not accept the arguments of the defence that the Crown has not proven the appropriate continuity of the Ruger and the shell casings. The trial judge was not required to specifically refer to every aspect of the evidence in relation to continuity in his reasons. [5] In any event, we are not persuaded by the appellant’s submission on appeal that there was a gap in continuity of the shell-casing exhibits. [6] The appellant also argues that the verdict is unreasonable. As we understand it, this submission is dependent on the court accepting the appellant’s first argument that there is a gap in the evidence regarding continuity of the shell casings sent for forensic testing. Having rejected that submission, in our view, the verdict is not unreasonable. [7] The conviction appeal is dismissed. The appellant did not pursue his sentence appeal. We dismiss the sentence appeal as abandoned. “Gary Trotter J.A.” “A Harvison Young J.A.” “J. Copeland J.A.”