R. v. D.N.S.

R. v. D.N.S. (2016), 326 Man.R.(2d) 153 (CA);

      664 W.A.C. 153

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.013

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. D.N.S. (accused/appellant)

(AR 15-30-08338; 2016 MBCA 27)

Indexed As: R. v. D.N.S.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Monnin, Beard and Pfuetzner, JJ.A.

March 8, 2016.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference respecting events occurring on April 2 and 3, 2012. The accused appealed his convictions on the grounds that (1) the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the accused and the complainant and (2) the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, resulting in an unreasonable verdict or, alternatively, a miscarriage of justice.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal based on the trial judge's misapprehension of the evidence. The court would normally order a new trial where there was evidence upon which another court could find the accused guilty. However, since the accused had served his sentence, the court declined to order a new trial. It merely set aside the convictions.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 4957

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Misapprehension of evidence - The accused was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference - The 14 year old complainant testified that the accused drugged her with Restoril and then attempted to have anal sex with her - The accused denied drugging the complainant or having sexual contact with her - Based on the evidence he accepted, the trial judge found the complainant to be credible and disbelieved the accused's testimony, finding that it did not raise a reasonable doubt - The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the accused's appeal on the ground of a material misapprehension of evidence which affected his credibility assessments and thus affected the verdict - The trial judge rejected specific aspects of the accused's testimony as implausible, when in fact they were not - There were various inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony that were either explained away by the trial judge or not addressed at all - Lies and inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony brought into question the complainant's credibility more significantly than recognized by the trial judge - The trial judge misapprehended inconclusive DNA evidence, finding it to be significant when it was not - As the accused's conviction depended upon misapprehended evidence, the verdict was a miscarriage of justice - The court would normally order a new trial where there was evidence upon which another court could find the accused guilty - However, since the accused had served his sentence, the court declined to order a new trial - Instead, the court merely set aside the conviction.

Criminal Law - Topic 4965.2

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Where sentence served or partially served - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4957 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Harper, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 2; 40 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Lohrer (A.W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 732; 329 N.R. 1; 208 B.C.A.C. 1; 344 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 80, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Lang (P.), [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 3822; 2011 ONSC 3822, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. G.J.B., [2012] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 29; 2012 MBCA 43, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. C.L.Y., [2008] 1 S.C.R. 5; 370 N.R. 284; 225 Man.R.(2d) 146; 419 W.A.C. 146; 2008 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Sinclair (T.), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 3; 418 N.R. 282; 268 Man.R.(2d) 225; 520 W.A.C. 225; 2011 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Mahmood (A.) (2011), 284 O.A.C. 94; 2011 ONCA 693, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. B.G.G. (2015), 319 Man.R.(2d) 306; 638 W.A.C. 306; 2015 MBCA 76, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. J.M.H., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 197; 421 N.R. 76; 283 O.A.C. 379; 2011 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. D.I., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 149; 427 N.R. 4; 288 O.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Mian (M.H.), [2014] 2 S.C.R. 689; 462 N.R. 1; 580 A.R. 1; 620 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992; 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257; 2000 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Shepherd (C.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 527; 391 N.R. 132; 331 Sask.R. 306; 460 W.A.C. 306; 2009 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Kubassek (E.) (2004), 189 O.A.C. 339 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Farrah (D.) (2011), 268 Man.R.(2d) 112; 520 W.A.C. 112; 2011 MBCA 49, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. MacKenzie (B.C.), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 250; 448 N.R. 246; 423 Sask.R. 185; 588 W.A.C. 185; 2013 SCC 50, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Fenske (H.B.), [2015] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 37; 2015 MBCA 113, refd to. [para. 32].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. P.L., [1995] O.J. No. 854 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Wright (N.A.) (2013), 303 Man.R.(2d) 26; 600 W.A.C. 26; 2013 MBCA 109, refd to. [para. 63].

Counsel:

K.E. Smith, for the appellant;

R.D. Lagimodière, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 30, 2015, before Monnin, Beard and Pfuetzner, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

On March 8, 2016, Beard, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.