R. v. Charland, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1006
Daniel Charland Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Charland
File No.: 25656.
1997: December 4.
Present: Lamer C.J. and Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta
Criminal law ‑‑ Evidence ‑‑ Cross‑examination of accused ‑‑ Prior convictions.
Cases Cited
Referred to: R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (1996), 43 Alta. L.R. (3d) 364, 187 A.R. 161, 127 W.A.C. 161, 110 C.C.C. (3d) 300, 2 C.R. (5th) 318, [1996] A.J. No. 819 (QL), dismissing the accused’s appeal from his conviction on charges of sexual assault, causing bodily harm while committing a sexual assault and threatening to cause bodily harm. Appeal dismissed.
Philip G. Lister, Q.C., for the appellant.
Jack Watson, Q.C., for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1 Cory J. ‑‑ The trial judge considered the decision of this Court in R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670, and permitted cross‑examination of the accused on his criminal record.
2 This is a discretionary decision. It is difficult to say that this was a wrongful exercise of that discretion.
3 The trial judge very carefully and correctly instructed the jury both before the cross‑examination by Crown counsel and in his charge as to the very limited use they could make of that evidence.
4 There is no reason to think that this jury did not abide by those instructions. Indeed their questions indicated a careful consideration of the issues apparently unaffected by the evidence of the convictions.
5 We agree with the conclusions of the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal and this appeal as of right is therefore dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Lister & Associate, Edmonton.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General for Alberta, Edmonton.
Email this Content