R. v. Wright, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 163
Robert Wright Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Wright
File No.: 24839.
1996: May 22.
Present: La Forest, Sopinka, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Criminal law ‑‑ Evidence ‑‑ Sexual assault ‑‑ Trial judge erring in relying on contents of complainant’s diary as corroboration of her testimony since diary had not been introduced into evidence ‑‑ Court of Appeal not erring in applying curative proviso ‑‑ Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, s. 686(1) (b)(iii).
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Criminal Code , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 , s. 686(1) (b)(iii).
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal, [1995] O.J. No. 2279 (QL), dismissing the accused’s appeal from his conviction of sexual assault and sexual interference. Appeal dismissed.
Richard Litkowski, for the appellant.
Roger A. Pinnock, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1 La Forest J. ‑‑ This appeal comes to us as of right. In the circumstances of this case, we are all of the view that the Court of Appeal did not err in applying s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code . The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: Richard Litkowski, Toronto.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto.
Email this Content