R. v. Williams
Because defence counsel did not identify portions of cross-examination to be read or request the whole cross, the trial judge acted within discretion by reading the portions requested by the jury and co-counsel, reminding the jury of the appellant’s cross-examination and theory, and no prejudice or unfairness...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2008 ONCA 664
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty The Queen; Appellant: Courtney Williams
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 1 October 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence Heard by Court of Appeal After Trial in Superior Court of Justice
- Outcome
- Appeal against conviction dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Jury Requests for Testimony, Reading of Witness Testimony, Cross Examination, Fair Trial, Prejudice Assessment
- 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
Courtney Williams
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence Heard by Court of Appeal After Trial in Superior Court of Justice
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred by failing to read all or part of the appellant’s cross-examination in response to a jury request
- 2 Whether the trial judge’s conduct resulted in prejudice or an unfair trial warranting reversal
Ratio Decidendi
Because defence counsel did not identify portions of cross-examination to be read or request the whole cross, the trial judge acted within discretion by reading the portions requested by the jury and co-counsel, reminding the jury of the appellant’s cross-examination and theory, and no prejudice or unfairness resulted; therefore the conviction stands.
Court Disposition
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Orders
- Appeal against conviction dismissed
- No order altering sentence (sentence appeal not pursued)
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Williams Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2008-10-01 Neutral citation 2008 ONCA 664 Docket numbers C46035 Judges O’Connor, Dennis; Juriansz, Russell G.; MacFarland, Jean Louise Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Williams, 2008 ONCA 664 DATE: 20081001 DOCKET: C46035 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO O'Connor A.C.J.O., Juriansz and MacFarland JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and Courtney Williams Appellant Apple Newton-Smith, for the appellant Andreea Baiasu, for the respondent Heard and released orally: September 19, 2008 On appeal from the conviction entered on June 2, 2005, and the sentence imposed on June 22, 2005, by Justice Mary L. Benotto of the Superior Court of Justice. ENDORSEMENT [1] In response to a request from the jury the trial judge read the portion of a witness’s examination-in-chief requested by the jury. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in failing to read all or a portion of the appellant’s counsel’s cross-examination of the witness. [2] Although given ample opportunity, counsel for the appellant did not identify any portions of the cross-examination that he submitted should be read to the jury nor did he ask that the whole cross-examination be read. In effect he provided no assistance to the trial judge. [3] After reading the portion of the examination-in-chief requested by the jury as well as the parts of the cross-examination requested by a co-counsel, the trial judge reminded the jury of the extensive cross-examination of the witness by appellant’s counsel. She then restated the appellant’s theory that the witness had colluded with others in fabricating her entire description of the events. [4] We see no prejudice or unfairness to the appellant in the approach taken by the trial judge. Accordingly the appeal against conviction is dismissed. The appellant did not pursue the sentence appeal. “D. O’Connor A.C.J.O.” “J. MacFarland J.A.” “R. Juriansz J.A.”