R. v. Buric, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 535
Jure George Buric and John Steven Parsniak Appellants
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Buric
File No.: 25365.
1997: March 20.
Present: Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Criminal law ‑‑ Trial ‑‑ Evidence ‑‑ Trial judge excluding key Crown witness from testifying on ground that his evidence was tainted ‑‑ Accused acquitted of first degree murder ‑‑ Trial judge erring in concluding that tainting was question of admissibility rather than weight ‑‑ Court of Appeal judgment ordering new trial upheld.
Cases Cited
Distinguished: R. v. Carosella, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1996), 28 O.R. (3d) 737, 90 O.A.C. 321, 106 C.C.C. (3d) 97, 48 C.R. (4th) 149, 36 C.R.R. (2d) 62, allowing the Crown’s appeal from the acquittal of the accused of first degree murder and ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed.
Brian H. Greenspan and Sharon E. Lavine, for the appellant Buric.
Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C., and Alison J. Wheeler, for the appellant Parsniak.
David Butt, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1 Sopinka J. ‑‑ The appeal is dismissed for the reasons of Labrosse J.A. We would only add that reliance was placed on our decision in R. v. Carosella, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80, which was decided by this Court after the judgment of the Court of Appeal in this case was rendered. In our view, the principles in that case have no application by reason, inter alia, that there is no finding by the trial judge nor any evidence which would justify the conclusion that the police failed to make a record deliberately to avoid production.
2 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant Buric: Greenspan, Humphrey, Toronto.
Solicitors for the appellant Parsniak: Greenspan & Associates, Toronto.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto.
Email this Content