R. v. Larmond
Because the trial judge failed to identify and highlight critical identification evidence when the jury sought assistance and the judge had not reviewed the evidence in his charge, the error rendered the conviction unsafe; the proviso could not be applied and a new trial was ordered.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2013 ONCA 150
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Michael Larmond
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 March 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Jury Directions, Identification Evidence, Judicial Review of Jury Questions, New Trial, Criminal Code S.686(1)(b)(iii) Proviso
- 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
Michael Larmond
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge was required to give his opinion as to the strength of the evidence
- 2 Whether the trial judge adequately answered the jury's question by pointing to critical evidence without expressing an opinion
- 3 Whether the error was harmless under the proviso in s.686(1)(b)(iii)
Ratio Decidendi
Because the trial judge failed to identify and highlight critical identification evidence when the jury sought assistance and the judge had not reviewed the evidence in his charge, the error rendered the conviction unsafe; the proviso could not be applied and a new trial was ordered.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Conviction set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Larmond Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2013-03-12 Neutral citation 2013 ONCA 150 Docket numbers C54922 Judges Rosenberg, Marc; Juriansz, Russell G.; Epstein, Gloria Jean Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Larmond, 2013 ONCA 150 DATE: 20130312 DOCKET: C54922 Rosenberg, Juriansz and Epstein JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Michael Larmond Appellant Delmar M. Doucette, for the appellant J. Sandy Tse, for the respondent Heard and released orally: March 7, 2013 On appeal from the conviction entered on October 18, 2011 by Justice Edward P. Belobaba of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury. ENDORSEMENT [1] We agree that the trial judge was not required to give his opinion as to the strength of the evidence, but as the trial judge and the parties interpreted the question, it could be answered by pointing to the critical evidence in the case, without expressing an opinion. [2] Whether a question has been adequately answered depends on the context. An important contextual factor in this case was that the trial judge had not reviewed the evidence in his charge. Since after a day of deliberation the jury was having difficulty with appreciating the significant parts of the evidence, the trial judge should have at least identified those parts of the evidence, such as the critical importance of McCallum’s original identification and Simmonds’ identification evidence. [3] This was not a strong Crown case, and we have not been persuaded that this error did not result in a reversible error. This is not a safe case to apply the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii). [4] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the conviction set aside and a new trial ordered. “M. Rosenberg J.A.” “R.G. Juriansz J.A.” “Gloria Epstein J.A.”