R. v. Bello

R. v. Bello

The trial judge's restatement of the Crown's credibility argument did not amount to an instruction permitting impermissible propensity reasoning and was not prejudicial; the trial judge accurately defined wilful blindness and properly distinguished it from negligence and recklessness, therefore there was no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2021 ONCA 394
Parties
Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Florence Bello
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Convictions After a Jury Trial (superior Court of Justice)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld
Legal Topics
Wilful Blindness, Propensity Reasoning, Jury Instructions, Knowledge and Mens Rea, Importation and Possession for Trafficking
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Evidence Appellate Procedure Wilful Blindness Propensity Reasoning Jury Instructions Knowledge and Mens Rea Importation and Possession for Trafficking

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

Florence Bello

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Convictions After a Jury Trial (superior Court of Justice)

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's summary of the Crown's argument invited improper propensity reasoning amounting to reversible error
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's answer to the jury's question properly defined and distinguished wilful blindness from negligence and recklessness

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's restatement of the Crown's credibility argument did not amount to an instruction permitting impermissible propensity reasoning and was not prejudicial; the trial judge accurately defined wilful blindness and properly distinguished it from negligence and recklessness, therefore there was no reversible error and the convictions stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No new trial ordered