R. v. Grangello
The trial judge erred in his treatment of in‑dock identification and, given the frailties of the identification evidence and only slight circumstantial evidence, the court could not be satisfied the verdict would necessarily have been the same; therefore the appeal was allowed, the convictions quashed and a new...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C27691
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Richard Grangello
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 14 June 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; new trial ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Identification Evidence, In‑dock Identification, Circumstantial Evidence, Appeal, New Trial
- 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
Richard Grangello
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the convictions were unreasonable or unsafe
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred in characterizing and instructing on in‑dock (in‑court) identification
- 3 Whether a new trial should be ordered given the identified error and the strength of the evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge erred in his treatment of in‑dock identification and, given the frailties of the identification evidence and only slight circumstantial evidence, the court could not be satisfied the verdict would necessarily have been the same; therefore the appeal was allowed, the convictions quashed and a new trial ordered.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; new trial ordered.
Orders
- Convictions quashed
- New trial ordered
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Grangello Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1999-06-14 Docket numbers C27691 Judges Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Laskin, John Ivan; Rosenberg, Marc Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 19990614 DOCKET: C27691 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. RICHARD GRANGELLO (Appellant) BEFORE: ABELLA, LASKIN and ROSENBERG JJ.A. COUNSEL: Daniel J. Brodsky, for the appellant Carol Brewer, for the respondent HEARD: June 11, 1999 On appeal from the conviction by His Honour Judge August, sitting alone, on April 18, 1997 ENDORSEMENT [1] We have not been persuaded that these convictions are unreasonable. There was some slight circumstantial evidence and the identification evidence from Ms. Lang. However, as the Crown concedes, the trial judge erred in holding that Ms. Lang's identification was not in-dock identification. There had been no prior line-up or other form of prior identification procedure. We cannot say that the verdict would necessarily have been the same had the trial judge properly instructed himself as to the frailties of in-dock identification. [2] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the convictions are quashed and a new trial is ordered. [3] The Crown concedes that this is not a strong case. As the appellant has already served his sentence, the Crown may wish to consider whether a new trial would be in the interests of justice.