R. v. Hickey
The trial judge correctly applied the legal principles for admitting similar fact evidence and adequately appreciated the legal significance of the proposed evidence; given the high degree of appellate deference to such evidentiary rulings, the Court of Appeal will not interfere and the appeal is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C32604
- Parties
- Appellant: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: Donald Hickey
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 27 April 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Acquittal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Similar Fact Evidence, Admissibility, Voir Dire, Appellate Deference
- 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
Appellant
Donald Hickey
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Acquittal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge misapplied principles governing admissibility of similar fact evidence
- 2 Whether the trial judge failed to appreciate the legal significance of the proposed similar fact evidence adduced on the voir dire
- 3 Whether appellate intervention was warranted given the required deference to trial judge rulings on admissibility
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge correctly applied the legal principles for admitting similar fact evidence and adequately appreciated the legal significance of the proposed evidence; given the high degree of appellate deference to such evidentiary rulings, the Court of Appeal will not interfere and the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Hickey Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2001-04-27 Docket numbers C32604 Judges Morden, John Wilson; MacPherson, James C.; Simmons, Janet M. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20010427 DOCKET: C32604 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Appellant) and DONALD HICKEY (Respondent) BEFORE: MORDEN, MacPHERSON and SIMMONS JJ.A. COUNSEL: Christine Bartlett-Hughes for the appellant Marie Henein for the respondent HEARD: April 26, 2001 On appeal from acquittal by Justice C. H. Paris dated July 5, 1999. ENDORSEMENT RELEASED ORALLY: April 26, 2001 [1] The trial judge stated the correct principles relating to the admissibility of similar fact evidence. The essence of the appellant’s case is that he misapplied them to the evidence that was adduced on the voir dire – specifically, that he did not appreciate the potential legal significance of the proposed similar fact evidence. We are not persuaded that he erred in this respect. [2] If there be any doubt on this, it was made clear in several statements made by the trial judge during counsels’ submissions before his ruling that he fully appreciated the Crown’s case and the legal significance of the proposed evidence. Having regard to the high degree of appellate deference that must be shown to trial judge’s rulings on the admissibility of similar fact evidence, we are satisfied that we should not interfere with the ruling in this case. [3] For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.