R. v. Ruiz
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge made clear, well-founded findings that the injuries resulted from an intentional assault, properly assessed and resolved conflicting expert evidence (accepting the Crown expert and rejecting the defence expert and appellant's account), and therefore there was no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C37037
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Victor Ruiz
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 19 March 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; appeal from sentence dismissed as abandoned.
- Legal Topics
- Defence of Accident, Expert Evidence, Criminal Negligence, Conviction, Sentence Abandonment
- 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
Victor Ruiz
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected himself on the defence of accident
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred in handling and assessing conflicting expert evidence
- 3 Whether the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge made clear, well-founded findings that the injuries resulted from an intentional assault, properly assessed and resolved conflicting expert evidence (accepting the Crown expert and rejecting the defence expert and appellant's account), and therefore there was no misdirection or inadequate reasoning that would overturn the conviction.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; appeal from sentence dismissed as abandoned.
Orders
- Appeal from conviction dismissed
- Appeal from sentence dismissed as abandoned
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Ruiz Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2004-03-19 Docket numbers C37037 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; Rosenberg, Marc; Aitken, Catherine D. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20040319 DOCKET: C37037 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) - and - VICTOR RUIZ (Appellant) BEFORE: LASKIN, ROSENBERG JJ.A. and AITKEN J. (ad hoc) COUNSEL: Richard Posner For the appellant Christine Bartlett-Hughes For the respondent HEARD: March 17, 2004 RELEASED ORALLY: March 17, 2004 On appeal from conviction by Justice Hughe R. Locke of the Superior Court of Justice on December 11, 2000. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant's principal submission is that the trial judge misdirected himself with respect to defence of accident and, in effect, rejected that defence on the basis that on the appellant's own evidence he was at least guilty of criminal negligence. The appellant also submits that the trial judge did not adequately deal with the expert evidence and did not provide reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence. [2] We would not give effect to these submissions. Irrespective of the trial judge's treatment of the accident defence, he made clear findings that this was an intentional assault. The trial judge also described how the blows were inflicted. It is implicit in those findings that he rejected the appellant's evidence, which was inconsistent with the expert evidence, which he did accept. [3] The trial judge's treatment of the conflict in the expert evidence was proper and is consistent with this court's decisions in R. v. Molnar (1990), 55 C.C.C. (3d) 446 and R. v. Smith (2001), 161 C.C.C. (3d) 1. In particular, the trial judge's careful analysis of Dr. Shouldice's evidence shows that he rejected the basis for the opinion of the defence expert. [4] Accordingly, the appeal from conviction is dismissed and the appeal from sentence is dismissed as abandoned. Signed: "John Laskin J.A." "M. Rosenberg J.A." "C. Aitken J. (ad hoc)"