R. v. Papaz
The trial judge's findings that any prejudice from jurors hearing impugned tape portions was negligible and cured by a written instruction, and that the jury selection complied with s.631(2), were open to him and presented no basis for appellate interference; therefore the conviction stands.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C44052
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Miroslav Papaz
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 4 October 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Jury Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Mistrial Motion, Inadmissible Evidence Heard by Jurors, Prejudice and Curative Instructions, Criminal Code S.631(2) Compliance
- 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
Miroslav Papaz
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Jury Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether exposure of jurors to inadmissible portions of tape required mistrial or other corrective relief
- 2 Whether jury selection complied with Criminal Code s.631(2) and was properly random
- 3 Whether the trial judge's curative instruction removed any material prejudice
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge's findings that any prejudice from jurors hearing impugned tape portions was negligible and cured by a written instruction, and that the jury selection complied with s.631(2), were open to him and presented no basis for appellate interference; therefore the conviction stands.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Papaz Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-10-04 Docket numbers C44052 Judges Moldaver, Michael James; Goudge, Stephen Thomas; Sharpe, Robert J. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20061003 DOCKET: C44052 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – MIROSLAV PAPAZ (Appellant) BEFORE: MOLDAVER, GOUDGE AND SHARPE JJ.A. COUNSEL: Paul Chumak, Q.C. for the appellant James Palangio for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: September 29, 2006 On appeal from conviction by Justice C. R. Harris of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury, dated July 14, 2005. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant raises two grounds of appeal against conviction. [2] On the first ground, assuming that some of the jurors may have heard the impugned portions of the tape that the trial judge ruled inadmissible, the trial judge was best positioned to determine what, if any, prejudice this occasioned to the appellant and what, if any, corrective steps, he could take to cure it. [3] The trial judge found that the risk of prejudice was negligible at best and he gave a written instruction to the jury which, in his view, overcame any possible prejudice to the appellant. In the end, he found that “there is no material prejudice” to the appellant. Accordingly, he dismissed the mistrial motion. In our view, it was open to the trial judge to make that finding and we see no basis for interfering with it. [4] With respect to the jury selection issue, we are of the view that the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the selection of jurors names under s. 631(2) were complied with. On its face, the selection process was proper and the trial judge found that “the cards were mixed appropriately in order to obtain the necessary policy and practice of random and purposeless choosing”. In our view, that finding was open to the trial judge and we see no basis for interfering with it. [5] The appeal is accordingly dismissed.