R. v. Brown
The trial judge did not err in exercising his discretion by declining to formally give a Vetrovec warning; he properly considered the co‑accused status, assessed credibility with reasons, found the witness honest and forthright with corroboration, and adequately rejected the defence theory of planting; therefore no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2018 ONCA 818
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Rodney Calvin Brown; Duty Counsel for Appellant: Matthew Gourlay
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 October 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Vetrovec Warning, Credibility of Co Accused, Self Instruction by Judge, Allegation of Planting Evidence
- 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
Rodney Calvin Brown
Appellant
Matthew Gourlay
Duty Counsel for Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred by not providing a Vetrovec warning or formally self‑instructing as to witness reliability
- 2 Whether the trial judge improperly assessed the credibility of a co‑accused/witness
- 3 Whether the trial judge failed to adequately address the defence theory of planting evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge did not err in exercising his discretion by declining to formally give a Vetrovec warning; he properly considered the co‑accused status, assessed credibility with reasons, found the witness honest and forthright with corroboration, and adequately rejected the defence theory of planting; therefore no appellate intervention was warranted and the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Brown Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2018-10-12 Neutral citation 2018 ONCA 818 Docket numbers C64245 Judges Simmons, Janet M.; Rouleau, Paul S.; Huscroft, Grant Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Brown, 2018 ONCA 818 DATE: 20181011 DOCKET: C64245 Simmons, Rouleau and Huscroft JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Rodney Calvin Brown Appellant Matthew Gourlay, as duty counsel Rodney Calvin Brown, in person Jessica Smith Joy, for the respondent Heard: October 3, 2018 APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The trial judge concluded that the downstairs occupant of the house who was originally co-accused with the appellant was not a witness for whom a Vetrovec warning would have been required had he been hearing this case with a jury. We see no basis on which to find the trial judge erred in the exercise of his discretion whether to formally self-instruct in accordance with Vetrovec. His reasons demonstrate that he took her status as a co-accused into account in assessing her credibility and fully considered the defence submissions concerning her motivation to fabricate. However, he found her evidence honest and forthright and aspects of her testimony were supported by other evidence. Further, he gave ample reasons for rejecting the defence theory of planting evidence. [2] The appeal is dismissed.