R. v. Legault
The trial judge erred by inferring identification of the appellant from the witnesses' demeanour and reluctance to speak; that inference was impermissible and, because the Crown did not prove the error harmless, the conviction was overturned and a new trial ordered.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2009 ONCA 86
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Wallace Legault
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 29 January 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction set aside and a new trial ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Demeanour Evidence, Identification Evidence, Trial Judge Reasoning, Harmless Error
- 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
Wallace Legault
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred by inferring a positive identification from witnesses' demeanour and reluctance to speak
- 2 Whether the conviction must be overturned and a new trial ordered because the error was not shown to be harmless
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge erred by inferring identification of the appellant from the witnesses' demeanour and reluctance to speak; that inference was impermissible and, because the Crown did not prove the error harmless, the conviction was overturned and a new trial ordered.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction set aside and a new trial ordered.
Orders
- Conviction quashed and a new trial ordered.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Legault Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2009-01-29 Neutral citation 2009 ONCA 86 Docket numbers C44754 Judges Rosenberg, Marc; Feldman, Kathryn N.; Cronk, Eleanore Ann Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Legault, 2009 ONCA 86 DATE: 20090129 DOCKET: C44754 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Rosenberg, Feldman and Cronk JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Wallace Legault Appellant Richard Posner, for the appellant Elise Nakelsky, for the respondent Heard and released orally: January 20, 2009 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice C. Marchand of the Superior Court of Justice on October 7, 2005. ENDORSEMENT [1] Of the various grounds of appeal raised by the appellant in support of his conviction appeal, we find it necessary to address only one. The appellant argues that the trial judge erred in relying on the demeanour of three Crown witnesses during their trial testimony as a basis for inferring that the appellant was a perpetrator in the attack on the complainant. [2] In his relatively short reasons, the trial judge referred extensively to the demeanour of the three witnesses and their reluctance to speak on the issue of the identity of the complainant’s assailant to support the inference, which the trial judge drew, that the witnesses were “all in terrible fear” of the appellant. The trial judge also indicated that because of this fear, the witnesses were “unwilling to identify” the appellant. The implication of these statements is that, but for the witnesses’ fear of the appellant, they would have been willing to identify him as one of the complainant’s assailants. [3] This was an error. Faced with the failure by the witnesses to identify the appellant, it was not open to the trial judge to infer evidence of a positive identification of the appellant by the witnesses. The Crown has not satisfied us that but for this imper-missible reasoning, the verdict would necessarily have been the same. Accordingly, the conviction cannot stand and a new trial is required. [4] The appeal against conviction is allowed and a new trial is ordered. “M. Rosenberg J.A.” “K. Feldman J.A.” “E.A. Cronk J.A.”