R. v. Trotta (M.)
Although the appellant's appeal was arguable and raised substantial issues about jury instructions on causation and reasonable doubt, the charge read as a whole was not so deficient and the public interest principle against releasing those convicted of murdering a young child requires a very strong probability of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C32352, M24627
- Parties
- Appellant: Marco Trotta; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 30 July 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Application for Bail Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for bail dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Appeal, Murder, Parole Ineligibility, Jury Instructions, Causation, Reasonable Doubt, Circumstantial 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
Marco Trotta
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Bail Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether bail pending appeal should be granted for a person convicted of murdering a young child
- 2 Whether the trial judge properly instructed the jury on causation
- 3 Whether the trial judge properly instructed the jury on reasonable doubt
Ratio Decidendi
Although the appellant's appeal was arguable and raised substantial issues about jury instructions on causation and reasonable doubt, the charge read as a whole was not so deficient and the public interest principle against releasing those convicted of murdering a young child requires a very strong probability of success; accordingly bail pending appeal was denied.
Court Disposition
Application for bail dismissed.
Orders
- Application for bail pending appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Trotta (M.) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1999-07-30 Docket numbers C32352, M24627 Judges Laskin, John Ivan Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 19990730 DOCKET: M24627 (C32352) COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. MARCO TROTTA (Appellant) BEFORE: LASKIN J.A. (In Chambers) COUNSEL: Michael Lomer For the appellant Laurie Lacelle For the respondent HEARD: July 29, 1999 ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant was convicted of the second degree murder of his eight month old son. The trial judge imposed a parole ineligibility period of 15 years. The appellant now applies for bail pending appeal. [2] I start with the proposition, well established in this province, that it is not in the public interest to release a person convicted of murdering a young child unless the appeal has a very strong probability of succeeding. See, for example, R. v. Olsen (1996); R. v. Pan (1994). [3] This appeal is arguable, even “more than arguable”. The Crown concedes as much. The main ground turns on whether the trial judge properly instructed the jury on causation. A second ground turns on whether the trial judge, in parts of his charge, properly instructed the jury on reasonable doubt. [4] I have reviewed the entire charge to the jury. My opinion is that although the appeal is arguable, it is not so compelling that I should consider releasing the appellant. The trial judge properly charged the jury on circumstantial evidence (pp.15-16), the theory of the defence (pp.25 and 39), accident (p.31) and reasonable doubt (p.92). Other parts of the charge may be vulnerable but when read as a whole, the charge does not stand out as so deficient that it would be in the public interest to release the appellant. [5] Accordingly, the application for bail is dismissed. “John Laskin J.A.” July 30, 1999