R. v. Demont
Admission of evidence explaining the absence of Chris Demont was prejudicial and improper because it left the jury with an erroneous impression that Demont would support the Crown and that the appellant was responsible for his absence; given weaknesses in the Crown's case and complainant credibility issues the error...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C38746
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Timothy Glenn Allen Demont
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 24 July 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Convictions Following Jury Trial; Sentence Appeal Abandoned
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; new trial ordered; sentence appeal abandoned.
- Legal Topics
- Absence of Witness, Prejudice, Jury Instructions, Curative Proviso, 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
Timothy Glenn Allen Demont
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Convictions Following Jury Trial; Sentence Appeal Abandoned
Legal Issues
- 1 Was it an error to admit evidence explaining the absence of a witness?
- 2 Did that error prejudice the appellant to the point a new trial was required?
- 3 If error occurred, was it cured by the curative proviso?
Ratio Decidendi
Admission of evidence explaining the absence of Chris Demont was prejudicial and improper because it left the jury with an erroneous impression that Demont would support the Crown and that the appellant was responsible for his absence; given weaknesses in the Crown's case and complainant credibility issues the error was not harmless and the curative proviso does not apply — convictions quashed and a new trial ordered.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; new trial ordered; sentence appeal abandoned.
Orders
- Convictions quashed
- New trial ordered
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Demont Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2003-07-24 Docket numbers C38746 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; Moldaver, Michael James; Cronk, Eleanore Ann Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20030724 DOCKET: C38746 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) - and - TIMOTHY GLENN ALLEN DEMONT (Appellant) BEFORE: LASKIN, MOLDAVER and CRONK JJ.A. COUNSEL: David E. Harris For the appellant Christine Bartlett-Hughes For the respondent HEARD: July 17, 2003 RELEASED ORALLY: July 17, 2003 On appeal from the convictions entered by Justice R. Scott of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury, on December 12, 2001 and sentence imposed on February 8, 2002. ENDORSEMENT [1] In our view, there must be a new trial in this matter. [2] The evidence led to explain the absence of Chris Demont was highly prejudicial to the appellant. It left the jury with the erroneous impression that Mr. Demont had helpful evidence to give on behalf of the Crown, that the Crown had unsuccessfully sought his attendance, and that the appellant was somehow responsible for his absence. [3] The truth of the matter is that Mr. Demont, to the knowledge of the Crown, was more likely to give evidence favourable to the defence than to the prosecution. In the circumstances, we think that the evidence concerning Mr. Demont's absence should not have been permitted. Instead, the trial judge should simply have told the jury that it was not to speculate one way or the other on the absence of Mr. Demont and that it was to decide the case based solely on the evidence before it. [4] In our view, the error was serious. Having regard to the weaknesses in the Crown's case, including the credibility problems associated with the complainant, we are of the view that this is not an appropriate case in which to apply the curative proviso. [5] In light of our disposition on this ground of appeal, we find it unnecessary to address the other two grounds raised by the appellant. Also, it is unnecessary to deal with the sentence appeal, which has been abandoned. [6] In the result, the appeal is allowed, the convictions are quashed and a new trial is ordered. "John Laskin J.A." "M. J. Moldaver J.A." "E. A. Cronk J.A."