In this pre-trial Stinchcombe disclosure ruling, the court dismissed a defence request for all investigative material, holding that clearly irrelevant material need not be disclosed.
The trial judge's failure to give an O'Connor instruction was not prejudicial because there was independent evidence from which the jury could infer fabrication of particular denials; although the trial judge erred in saying prior exculpatory statements were not evidence unless adopted at trial, that legal error was harmless given the overwhelming DNA evidence placing the appellant at the scene and corroborating records; applying the proviso, the appeal is dismissed and the conviction is upheld.
The Court dismissed both appeals, holding the trial judge did not err in declining a dangerous offender designation and instead imposing a fifteen year fixed term consecutive to the existing sentence plus a ten year long-term supervision order; the trial judge properly weighed psychiatric and institutional reports, did not rely exclusively on group statistical evidence nor shift the onus to the Crown, and reasonably concluded there was a substantial risk of reoffending but a reasonable possibility of eventual control given the offender’s age and supervision conditions.
The trial judge erred in law by treating Jordan as precluding DNA orders for past offences and by failing to consider mandatory factors under s.487.052(2) (notably the respondent's significant prior record and the minimal demonstrated privacy intrusion); on the record a DNA order was appropriate, so the appeal is allowed and the matter remitted for issuance of the s.487.052 order.