R. v. Cooper
The evidence regarding the stolen Nintendo and the note was admissible so long as it was not used as propensity evidence, but the trial judge erred by failing to consider whether, having rejected the appellant's testimony, he was nonetheless left in reasonable doubt; that failure rendered the verdict unsafe and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C32473
- Parties
- Appellant: WILLIAM JAMES COOPER; Respondent: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 April 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Propensity Evidence, Reasonable Doubt, Credibility, 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
WILLIAM JAMES COOPER
Appellant
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Admissibility of evidence relating to stolen property and a note
- 2 Whether such evidence was used impermissibly as propensity evidence
- 3 Whether the trial judge properly assessed reasonable doubt after rejecting the appellant's testimony
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence regarding the stolen Nintendo and the note was admissible so long as it was not used as propensity evidence, but the trial judge erred by failing to consider whether, having rejected the appellant's testimony, he was nonetheless left in reasonable doubt; that failure rendered the verdict unsafe and required setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Conviction set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Cooper Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2000-04-12 Docket numbers C32473 Judges Catzman, Marvin Adrian; Carthy, James Joseph; O’Connor, Dennis Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20000412 DOCKET: C32473 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) –and– WILLIAM JAMES COOPER (Appellant) BEFORE: CATZMAN, CARTHY and O’CONNOR JJ.A. COUNSEL: Michelle K. Fuerst, for the appellant Amy Alyea, for the respondent HEARD: April 12, 2000 On appeal from the conviction imposed by Fournier J. dated March 24, 1999. ENDORSEMENT [1] We do not accept the appellant’s submission that the evidence relating to the stolen Nintendo and the note left by the appellant was inadmissible. In our view, that evidence was properly admitted, so long as care was taken not to use it as evidence of propensity. We are of the view that it was not so used in the present case. [2] However, we have concluded that the reasons of the trial judge reflect that he did not deal appropriately with the question of reasonable doubt in assessing the appellant’s evidence. [3] The case turned essentially on the credibility of the evidence of the appellant and of Ms. Reid. Having regard to the trial judge’s repeated assertions that various aspects of the appellant’s evidence were “not unreasonable” or “absolutely not worthy of credibility”, it appears that the trial judge failed to consider whether, if he concluded that he did not believe the appellant’s testimony, he was, nonetheless, left in reasonable doubt by that evidence. By reason of his failure to consider that question, the verdict cannot stand. [4] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the conviction set aside and a new trial is ordered. Signed: “M.A. Catzman J.A.” “J.J. Carthy J.A.” “Dennis O’Connor J.A.”