R. v. Abbott
The trial judge did not commit reversible error because he fairly and fully addressed evidence pointing to both innocence and guilt, appropriately cautioned the jury about using the alleged lie as evidence of guilt, and the jury could draw any inference of innocence without a special instruction; appeal dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C28334
- Parties
- Appellant: Gordon Abbott; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 18 May 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction (jury Trial)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Consciousness of Guilt, Consciousness of Innocence, Jury Instructions, Circumstantial Evidence, Identification Evidence
- 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
Gordon Abbott
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction (jury Trial)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred by failing to give a special instruction on consciousness of innocence
- 2 Whether the trial judge properly instructed the jury on evidence of an alleged lie (consciousness of guilt) and cautioned its use
- 3 Whether the trial judge's preliminary opinion in the charge or treatment of witness McKee's evidence constituted reversible error
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge did not commit reversible error because he fairly and fully addressed evidence pointing to both innocence and guilt, appropriately cautioned the jury about using the alleged lie as evidence of guilt, and the jury could draw any inference of innocence without a special instruction; appeal dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Abbott Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1999-05-18 Docket numbers C28334 Judges Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Laskin, John Ivan; Feldman, Kathryn N. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE:19990518 DOCKET:C28334 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) and GORDON ABBOTT BEFORE: ABELLA, LASKIN AND FELDMAN JJ.A. COUNSEL: Brian H. Greenspan and Peter Copeland For the appellant Carol A. Brewer For the respondent HEARD: May 13, 1999 On appeal from the conviction on September 22, 1997, imposed by Mr. Justice B. Smith, sitting with a jury. ENDORSEMENT [1] We called on the Crown on only one point: whether the trial judge erred because he failed to give the jury a special instruction on evidence of “consciousness of innocence” similar to his instruction on evidence of consciousness of guilt. We find no error and, indeed, we think that this issue was addressed in a balanced way in the judge’s charge. [2] The trial judge fully and fairly referred both to the evidence pointing to the appellant’s innocence and to the evidence pointing to his guilt. The inference to be drawn from the circumstantial evidence pointing to the appellant’s innocence would have been obvious to the jury. On the other hand, the trial judge wanted to ensure that the jury did not misuse the evidence of the appellant’s alleged lie. Thus he cautioned them on how this evidence might be used. In short, if the trial judge treated the consciousness of guilt evidence differently, it was only because the jury had to be appropriately cautioned on its use. [3] We see no merit in the other two grounds of appeal. The trial judge made it clear that if the jury accepted McKee’s evidence or had a reasonable doubt about it, the appellant was entitled to an acquittal. The opinion given by the trial judge early in his charge was to assist the jury in isolating for them the only issue in the case, the identification of the killer. We note that none of the three issues raised on appeal was the subject of an objection at trial. The appeal is dismissed. “R.S. Abella, J.A.” “John Laskin, J.A.” “K. Feldman J.A.”