R. v. Nguyen
The Court dismissed the appeal because, on the trial judge's findings, it was open to conclude the appellant possessed the heroin and the verdict was not unreasonable; although cross-examination about a conditional discharge was improper, it was harmless because the judge rejected the appellant's evidence on its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C38442
- Parties
- Appellant: Van Thu Nguyen; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 21 September 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Possession of Controlled Substance, Unreasonable Verdict, Cross Examination on Conditional Discharge, Evaluation of Credibility
- 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 Thu Nguyen
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the verdict was unreasonable or could be supported on the evidence
- 2 Whether the trial judge could find possession of heroin by the appellant
- 3 Whether cross-examination on the appellant's conditional discharge was permissible and whether it affected the verdict
Ratio Decidendi
The Court dismissed the appeal because, on the trial judge's findings, it was open to conclude the appellant possessed the heroin and the verdict was not unreasonable; although cross-examination about a conditional discharge was improper, it was harmless because the judge rejected the appellant's evidence on its face and that rejection was independent of the improper questioning.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Nguyen Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2005-09-21 Docket numbers C38442 Judges Doherty, David H.; Moldaver, Michael James; Armstrong, Robert Patrick Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20050921 DOCKET: C38442 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. VAN THU NGUYEN (Appellant) BEFORE: DOHERTY, MOLDAVER and ARMSTRONG JJ.A. COUNSEL: Michael W. Lacy for the appellant Kevin Wilson for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: September 20, 2005 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Himel of the Superior Court of Justice dated May 17, 2002 and the sentence imposed on June 26, 2002. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The case against the appellant was not a strong one. However, we are satisfied on the findings made by the trial judge that it was open to the trial judge to find that she was in possession of the heroin found on the table in the living room. We cannot say that the verdict is unreasonable. The appellant should not have been cross-examined on her conditional discharge. We are satisfied, however, that it played no role in the trial judge’s rejection of the appellant’s evidence which was on its face incredible. [2] The appeal is dismissed.