R. v. Bezusko
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's reference to the co-accused statement did not constitute error in light of his limiting instruction and because the verdict was not one that no reasonable trier of fact could have reached; the judge properly assessed the circumstantial evidence by refusing inferences...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C30208
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Seth Jeremy Bezusko
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 11 March 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal Court of Appeal Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Circumstantial Evidence, Co Accused Statements, Reasonable Verdict
- 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
Seth Jeremy Bezusko
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal Court of Appeal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Admissibility and use of co-accused's incriminating statement against appellant
- 2 Whether the verdict was unreasonable on the totality of the evidence
- 3 Proper approach to circumstantial evidence and drawing inferences
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's reference to the co-accused statement did not constitute error in light of his limiting instruction and because the verdict was not one that no reasonable trier of fact could have reached; the judge properly assessed the circumstantial evidence by refusing inferences open to doubt.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Bezusko Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1999-03-11 Docket numbers C30208 Judges Finlayson, George Duncan; Catzman, Marvin Adrian; Rosenberg, Marc Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 19990311 DOCKET: C30208 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) and SETH JEREMY BEZUSKO (Appellant) BEFORE: FINLAYSON, CATZMAN and ROSENBERG JJ.A. COUNSEL: Peter B. Hambly, for the appellant Eric Siebenmorgen, for the respondent HEARD: March 9, 1999 ENDORSEMENT [1] Mr. Hambly made two submissions in support of this appeal. [2] The first related to an incriminating statement made by the co-accused Burton in the absence of the appellant. [3] While it may well be that the statement was properly admissible not only against Burton but against the appellant as well, the trial judge expressly instructed himself that the statement was not to be used in assessing the culpability of the appellant and, immediately after giving himself that instruction, simply listed that statement in his enumeration of a number of facts in the evidence that led him to the finding of guilt that he made. We see no error in his reference to the statement in the disposition of the charge against the appellant. [4] The second submission was that the verdict was unreasonable. While the evidence against the appellant was subject to some frailty, we are unable to say that, on the totality of the evidence, no reasonable trier of fact, acting judicially, could have reached the conclusion reached by the trial judge in this case. In particular, we see no error in the manner in which the trial judge addressed the circumstantial evidence on which the Crown's case was based. Though he did not state the test in the classic language relating to such evidence, he clearly refused to draw any inferences that were, in his words, "open to any doubt" and thus made no error in his assessment of the evidence. [5] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.