R. v. Kan
Appeal dismissed because the trial judge's ruling did not prevent the appellant from eliciting exculpatory material (and such material was effectively before the jury), and the cross-examination about the prior incident was relevant with minimal prejudice; any error would have been harmless and did not cause a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C36671
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Savoun Kan
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 21 May 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Convictions (court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Aggravated Assault, Discharging a Firearm With Intent to Endanger Life, Admissibility of Prior Incidents, Cross Examination, Exclusion of Parts of Statement, Harmless Error/substantial Wrong Test
- 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
Savoun Kan
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Convictions (court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge wrongly precluded the appellant from eliciting the exculpatory parts of his statement
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred in permitting the Crown to cross-examine the appellant about a prior shooting incident and whether any such error was prejudicial
Ratio Decidendi
Appeal dismissed because the trial judge's ruling did not prevent the appellant from eliciting exculpatory material (and such material was effectively before the jury), and the cross-examination about the prior incident was relevant with minimal prejudice; any error would have been harmless and did not cause a substantial wrong.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Convictions affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Kan Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2004-05-21 Docket numbers C36671 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; Feldman, Kathryn N.; Blair, Robert Ashley Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20040521 DOCKET: C36671 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) - and - SAVOUN KAN (Appellant) BEFORE: LASKIN, FELDMAN and BLAIR JJ.A. COUNSEL: Maureen Forestell for the appellant Gillian Roberts for the respondent HEARD: May 12, 2004 RELEASED ORALLY: May 12, 2004 On appeal from the convictions entered by Justice Tamarin Dunnet of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury, dated November 3, 2000. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant appeals his convictions for aggravated assault and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life. He makes two submissions. First, the trial judge wrongly precluded him from eliciting the exculpatory parts of his statement; and second, the trial judge erred in permitting the Crown to cross-examine him on the previous shooting incident on February 1. [2] We think that there are three answers to the first submission. First, the trial judge's ruling did not prevent the appellant from seeking to lead the exculpatory parts of his statement in re-examination. He did not try to do so. Second, as the Crown points out, in one way or another, all of the evidence that might have been elicited came out at the trial. Third, as Ms. Forrester candidly acknowledged, this alleged error likely had very little impact on the verdict. [3] We do not agree with the appellant's second submission. In our view, the previous incident was relevant to the extent of the appellant's knowledge of the other two men. Any prejudice from the cross-examination on the incident was, at its highest, minimal. The cross-examination did not suggest that the appellant was anything other than a witness to the previous incident. Moreover, it was open to the appellant to clarify his role in re-examination. He chose not to do so. Thus, we find no error in the trial judge's ruling. Even if she did err, the evidence played a minor role in the case. Therefore, its admission caused no substantial wrong. [4] Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. "John Laskin J.A." "K. Feldman J.A." "R. A. Blair J.A."