R. v. Falconer
Appellant failed to establish incompetent representation; given strong evidence of the assault inside the car, submitting included offences would have been speculative and was unnecessary; manslaughter conviction stands; sentence, though high, was not unfit in context of an additional assault while on bail and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C26236
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Robert John Falconer
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 3 March 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal (court of Appeal for Ontario)
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Included Offences, Manslaughter, Sentencing, Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
- 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
Robert John Falconer
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal (court of Appeal for Ontario)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether trial counsel's representation was incompetent
- 2 Whether included offences should have been put to the jury
- 3 Whether the evidence supported manslaughter conviction based on blows inside the car
Ratio Decidendi
Appellant failed to establish incompetent representation; given strong evidence of the assault inside the car, submitting included offences would have been speculative and was unnecessary; manslaughter conviction stands; sentence, though high, was not unfit in context of an additional assault while on bail and the appellant's lengthy record.
Court Disposition
Appeals dismissed
Orders
- Appeal against conviction dismissed
- Appeal against sentence dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Falconer Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1999-03-03 Docket numbers C26236 Judges McMurtry, Roy; Carthy, James Joseph; Doherty, David H. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 19990303 DOCKET: C26236 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) and ROBERT JOHN FALCONER (Appellant) BEFORE: McMURTRY C.J.O., CARTHY and DOHERTY JJ.A. COUNSEL: Frank Crewe, for the appellant Beverley Brown, for the respondent HEARD: March 1, 1999 ENDORSEMENT [1] The onus, of course, is on the appellant to establish that the representation provided by trial counsel was incompetent: R. v. Joanisse. In our view, this onus has not been met. The trial counsel was faced with certain tactical decisions and while other counsel may have conducted the defence differently, incompetent representation has not been established. In coming to this conclusion, we have looked at the items of complaint individually and collectively. [2] The other significant issue before us was whether the included offences should have been put before the jury by the trial judge. This is somewhat troubling but given the strong evidence of what took place inside the car, we conclude that it would have been speculation for a jury to have a doubt based on what was observed outside the car. It follows therefore that if the jury was satisfied that the appellant struck the blows inside the car, that he would have been guilty of manslaughter. [3] We see no merit in the other grounds of appeal. [4] In relation to the sentence appeal, the sentence was high, but in our view, not unfit especially in light of the other serious assault committed by the appellant while on bail on this charge as well as his lengthy criminal record. [5] The appeals as to conviction and sentence are therefore dismissed.