R. v. Le
The trial judge erred in excluding the light bulb and fertilizer because, given the context (items of a type used in marihuana cultivation, possession of keys to the basement and recent presence in the residence), they were probative of knowledge and alternative explanations go to weight not admissibility; the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C40562
- Parties
- Appellant: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: Tuan Van Le
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 13 August 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Acquittal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside; new trial ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Knowledge (mens Rea), New Trial
- 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
Tuan Van Le
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Acquittal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether evidence of a light bulb and fertilizer was admissible to prove knowledge of marihuana cultivation
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred by requiring a specific connection showing the items had been used in the particular operation before admitting them
- 3 Whether the acquittal should be set aside and a new trial ordered
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge erred in excluding the light bulb and fertilizer because, given the context (items of a type used in marihuana cultivation, possession of keys to the basement and recent presence in the residence), they were probative of knowledge and alternative explanations go to weight not admissibility; the acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside; new trial ordered.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Acquittal set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Le Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2004-08-13 Docket numbers C40562 Judges Rosenberg, Marc; Armstrong, Robert Patrick; Blair, Robert Ashley Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20040813 DOCKET: C40562 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Appellant) – and – TUAN VAN LE (Respondent) BEFORE: ROSENBERG, ARMSTRONG and BLAIR JJ.A. COUNSEL: Croft Michaelson for the appellant Craig Parry for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: August 11, 2004 On appeal from acquittal by Justice D. J. Gordon of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 7, 2003. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] In our view, the trial judge erred in excluding the evidence of the light bulb and fertilizer. These items were of a type used in marihuana cultivation and in context were probative of the issue of knowledge. Part of that context was the respondent’s possession of keys to the basement where the marihuana was growing and that he had just spent twenty minutes in the residence. The trial judge’s error was in holding that there has to be a specific connection to this particular operation in the sense that these items had been used in this operation and, in effect, holding that these individual pieces of evidence had to bear the entire burden of proof, that is, that on their own they had to prove the offence. The fact that there could be alternative explanations for the appellant’s possession of these items went to weight not admissibility. [2] Taken with the other evidence, had the trial judge admitted the evidence and directed himself as to its probative value the verdict would not necessarily have been the same. [3] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The acquittal set aside and a new trial ordered.