R. v. Skinner
Loveless' reply testimony went beyond admissible reply evidence and effectively split the Crown's case; the trial judge's instruction did not eliminate the resulting prejudice and therefore the conviction must be quashed and a new trial ordered.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C22004
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Josephine Skinner
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 29 December 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Reply Evidence, Jury Instructions, 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
Respondent
Josephine Skinner
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether testimony elicited in reply exceeded proper scope of reply evidence
- 2 Whether the Crown effectively split its case by introducing material evidence in reply
- 3 Whether the trial judge's jury instruction cured the prejudice from improper reply evidence
Ratio Decidendi
Loveless' reply testimony went beyond admissible reply evidence and effectively split the Crown's case; the trial judge's instruction did not eliminate the resulting prejudice and therefore the conviction must be quashed and a new trial ordered.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Conviction quashed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Skinner Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1998-12-29 Docket numbers C22004 Judges Osborne, Coulter Arthur Anthony; Austin, Allan McNiece; Moldaver, Michael James Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 19981229 DOCKET: C22004 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) and JOSEPHINE SKINNER (Appellant) BEFORE: OSBORNE, AUSTIN AND MOLDAVER JJ.A. COUNSEL: Richard A. Prendiville For the appellant Lucy Cecchetto For the Crown, respondent HEARD: December 21, 1998 ENDORSEMENT [1] The testimony of Mr. Loveless as to what Kendall said to him was admissible in reply. The Crown, however, permitted Loveless to go on at considerable length, describing the scene and the parts of Noonan and the appellant in it. This was evidence which should have been led as part of the Crown’s case in chief. Coming as it did in reply, it had the effect of splitting the Crown’s case. [2] The trial judge’s charge indicated to the jury that Kendall’s alleged statement, if made, could be considered by the jury only in the context of Kendall’s credibility. This, however, did not cure the prejudice to the appellant created by the bulk of Loveless’ reply evidence, which could only have been admissible as part of the Crown’s case in chief. It is not at all clear that the verdict would have been the same had this improper reply evidence not been given. [3] Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed, the conviction quashed and a new trial directed. Since the appellant has served her sentence, including the 200 hours of community service, serious consideration should be given by the Crown as to whether the matter should be pursued.