R. v. Nguyen
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's factual findings and inferences—that appellants knew the premises contained a grow‑op, secured the door, and were present to care for plants—were reasonably drawn from the evidence; the maintenance explanation was mere surmise (buckets alone insufficient) and did...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C43822, C43825
- Parties
- Appellant: Van Phu Nguyen; Appellant: Van Chien Phung; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 30 August 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Convictions and Sentence to Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentence upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Unreasonable Verdict, Circumstantial Evidence, Reasonable Doubt, Appeal Standard Palpable and Overriding Error, Possession/operation of a Grow‑op
- 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
Van Phu Nguyen
Appellant
Van Chien Phung
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Convictions and Sentence to Court of Appeal for Ontario
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial verdict was unreasonable
- 2 Whether alternative innocent explanations (maintenance) raised a reasonable doubt
- 3 Whether appellate court may overturn inferences drawn by trial judge
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's factual findings and inferences—that appellants knew the premises contained a grow‑op, secured the door, and were present to care for plants—were reasonably drawn from the evidence; the maintenance explanation was mere surmise (buckets alone insufficient) and did not raise a reasonable doubt, and therefore there was no palpable and overriding error warranting appellate interference.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentence upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Convictions and sentence of the trial court affirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Nguyen Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-08-30 Docket numbers C43822, C43825 Judges Goudge, Stephen Thomas; Sharpe, Robert J.; Blair, Robert Ashley Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20060828 DOCKET: C43822 and C43825 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – VAN PHU NGUYEN and VAN CHIEN PHUNG (Appellants) BEFORE: GOUDGE, SHARPE and BLAIR JJ.A. COUNSEL: Kim Schofield for the appellant Nguyen Daniel A. Stein for the appellant Phung Peter Defreitas for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: August 25, 2006 On appeal from convictions by Justice Douglas B. Maund of the Ontario Court of Justice dated March 7, 2005 and sentence imposed June 27, 2005. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellants argue that the verdict at trial is unreasonable. [2] We do not agree. The trial judge found as facts that both appellants must have known that the house contained a “growop”, that one of them secured the door on leaving, and that both were in the premises to care for the plants. These inferences were all quite available on the evidence. None constitute palpable and overriding error. None are open to review in this court. This is enough for convictions. [3] However, the appellants argue that the trial judge erred in failing to find that their presence might have been for maintenance of the buckets and the house generally, independent of the “growop” and that this must raise a reasonable doubt for any reasonable trier. [4] Again we disagree. There is no evidence from which one could find (beyond simple surmise) that maintenance of the house could possibly explain their presence – such as tools or evidence of maintenance activities. [5] The appellants can only point to there being buckets in the house to catch dripping water. This alone is not enough for us to find that no reasonable trier could avoid the conclusion that this possibility of being there for maintenance alone rose at least to the level of reasonable doubt. [6] Taking these considerations together with the fact that the appellants did not give evidence at trial, we cannot find this to be a case of unreasonable verdict. [7] The appeal is dismissed.