R. v. J., M.
The appeal was allowed because the trial judge's reasons were inadequate for failing to confront the defence that the appellant was an unwilling dupe and for using language that risked reversing the Crown's onus; although the verdict was not unreasonable, inadequate reasons required quashing the conviction and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C39847
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Matthew J. (a young person)
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 23 January 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Evidence, Burden of Proof, Reasons for Judgment, Dupe Defence, Judicial Review of Verdict
- 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
Matthew J. (a young person)
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether trial reasons were inadequate for failing to address the defence that the appellant was an unwilling dupe of his mother
- 2 Whether the trial judge impermissibly reversed the onus of proof
- 3 Whether the verdict was unreasonable
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was allowed because the trial judge's reasons were inadequate for failing to confront the defence that the appellant was an unwilling dupe and for using language that risked reversing the Crown's onus; although the verdict was not unreasonable, inadequate reasons required quashing the conviction and ordering a new trial.
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. J., M. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2004-01-23 Docket numbers C39847 Judges Doherty, David H.; Rosenberg, Marc; Moldaver, Michael James Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20040123 DOCKET: C39847 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) - and - MATTHEW J. (A Young Person) (Appellant) BEFORE: DOHERTY, ROSENBERG and MOLDAVER JJ.A. COUNSEL: Leslie Maunder for the appellant Susanne Boucher for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: January 20, 2004 On appeal from the conviction and sentence of Justice Morten of the Superior Court of Justice dated May 29, 2002 and January 30, 2003. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The reasons for judgment are inadequate. They do not come to grips with the defence contention that the appellant was an unwilling dupe of his mother. There was evidence to support that contention. [2] The trial judge referred only to the change in the weight and appearance of the suitcase in concluding that the appellant knew that there was cocaine in the suitcase. The customs official did not notice anything suspicious in the suitcase until she took a very close examination. The weight increased by some two pounds. [3] The reasons also suggest a reversal of onus. The trial judge said that it is "…not untoward that you knew" - "Untoward" suggests something fall short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal must be allowed. [4] The verdict is not unreasonable. A trier of fact could reasonably have concluded that the appellant knew there was cocaine in the suitcase. [5] The appeal is allowed. The conviction is quashed and a new trial is ordered.