R. v. Rose
The Court dismissed the appeal because the trial judge could reasonably infer from the circumstantial evidence that the appellant had possession and the requisite knowledge and control for trafficking, and the single judicial interjection did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2010 ONCA 200
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Leando Magnus Rose
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 17 March 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Possession for Trafficking, Circumstantial Evidence, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Standard of Appellate Review
- 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
Leando Magnus Rose
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the verdict was unreasonable on the evidence
- 2 Whether a single interjection by the trial judge created a reasonable apprehension of bias
Ratio Decidendi
The Court dismissed the appeal because the trial judge could reasonably infer from the circumstantial evidence that the appellant had possession and the requisite knowledge and control for trafficking, and the single judicial interjection did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Rose Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2010-03-17 Neutral citation 2010 ONCA 200 Docket numbers C50497 Judges Blair, Robert Ashley; LaForme, Harry Smith; Durno, Bruce Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Rose, 2010 ONCA 200 DATE: 20100316 DOCKET: C50497 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Blair, LaForme JJ.A. and Durno J. (Ad Hoc) BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Leando Magnus Rose Appellant Vincenzo Rondinelli, for the appellant Lucas Price, for the respondent Heard: March 15, 2010 On appeal from the convictions imposed by Justice J.A. Ramsay of the Superior Court of Justice dated April, 21, 2009. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant raises two grounds of appeal from his conviction on a charge of possession of trafficking. He argues first that the verdict was unreasonable and, secondly, that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from a single interjection by the trial judge during the Crown’s examination of the key witness, Ms. Findlayter. [2] We would not give effect to either ground of appeal. In our view, there was ample basis on the circumstantial evidence for the trial judge to find, as he did, that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence he accepted was that the appellant was in possession of the vehicle and that he had sufficient knowledge and control of the drugs to be in possession of them in law. There was no issue that if the appellant was in possession of the cocaine, it was possession for the purposes of trafficking. It follows that the trial judge could reasonably have reached his conclusion on the totality of the evidence. [3] We see no basis for the allegation of apprehension of bias. There is a very high threshold for such a finding. In the context of the exchanges that had just occurred between the Crown, defence counsel and the judge respecting earlier attempts to examine Ms. Findlayter on statements made to her by others, and given that the trial judge ultimately permitted the question to continue, we do not see anything improper in the single interjection he made. This is not a case like R. v. Camardi, [2009] O.J. No. 163 where it was clear that the trial judge’s single interjection signalled a prior mind set respecting credibility. That is not the case here. [4] The appeal is therefore dismissed.