R. v. Merritt
The trial judge's charge sufficiently instructed the jury on identification and circumstantial evidence; the absence of additional cautions did not amount to misdirection or non-direction and did not warrant appellate interference, therefore the conviction and sentence appeals are dismissed (with custodial portion...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2018 ONCA 824
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Dante Merritt
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 October 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Hearing on Conviction and Sentence Appeal
- Outcome
- Conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal dismissed; leave to appeal sentence granted; custodial portion served and sentencing custody issue moot; no interference with driving prohibition.
- Legal Topics
- Jury Charge, Identification Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence, Misdirection, Driving Prohibition, Mootness
- 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
Dante Merritt
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Hearing on Conviction and Sentence Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge failed to adequately caution the jury that items linking the appellant to an address were relevant only to his relationship with the passenger and not to identification as the driver
- 2 Whether the omission amounted to misdirection or non-direction requiring appellate intervention
- 3 Whether the sentence or driving prohibition should be varied given the custodial portion has been served and the issue is moot
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge's charge sufficiently instructed the jury on identification and circumstantial evidence; the absence of additional cautions did not amount to misdirection or non-direction and did not warrant appellate interference, therefore the conviction and sentence appeals are dismissed (with custodial portion served rendering that aspect moot).
Court Disposition
Conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal dismissed; leave to appeal sentence granted; custodial portion served and sentencing custody issue moot; no interference with driving prohibition.
Orders
- Conviction appeal dismissed
- Sentence appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Merritt Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2018-10-12 Neutral citation 2018 ONCA 824 Docket numbers C64941 Judges Simmons, Janet M.; Rouleau, Paul S.; Huscroft, Grant Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Merritt, 2018 ONCA 824 DATE: 20181011 DOCKET: C64941 Simmons, Rouleau and Huscroft JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Dante Merritt Appellant Andrew Faith, as duty counsel Dante Merritt, in person Hannah Freeman, for the respondent Heard: October 2, 2018 APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] On behalf of the appellant, duty counsel argues that in her charge to the jury, the trial judge erred in failing to sufficiently caution the jury that the items she listed as linking the appellant to a particular address were relevant only to his relationship with the passenger of the vehicle on the night in question and did not directly support his identification as the driver. [2] We do not accept this submission. In her instructions, the trial judge clearly identified the matter she listed as being relevant to the appellant’s link to the vehicle and the passenger. While it may have been preferable had the trial judge added additional cautions, no such cautions were requested. Nor, in our view, did the failure to provide them amount to misdirection or non-direction. On our review of the charge, the jury was sufficiently instructed on the issues of identification and circumstantial evidence. The conviction appeal is dismissed. [3] The appellant has served the custodial portion of his sentence. The issue in the regard is moot. We see no basis on which to interfere with the length of the driving prohibition. Leave to appeal sentence is granted; the sentence appeal is dismissed.