COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
|
|
- Derrick Johnston
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 On review from a committal to stand trial on a charge of second degree murder by a preliminary inquiry judge dated September 13, Date: Docket: CR (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Linklater Cited as: 2018 MBQB 38 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: COUNSEL: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, ) ) For the Crown: Respondent, ) Michael Himmelman ) - and - ) ) For the (Accused) Applicant: BILLY JOE LINKLATER, ) Martin Glazer and James Lowry ) (Accused) Applicant. ) Judgment delivered: ) March 2, 2018 MARTIN J. INTRODUCTION [1] Mr. Billy Joe Linklater, along with Ms. Lorie Knott, is accused of stabbing to death David Sanderson in his home on June 22, After a preliminary inquiry, they were jointly committed to stand trial for second-degree murder. Mr. Linklater seeks an order of certiorari quashing his committal; Ms. Knott does not.
2 Page: 2 ISSUE [2] On application for certiorari, Mr. Linklater claims that the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded his jurisdiction in committing him to trial where there was no evidence to support such a decision. [3] The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the standard of review on such an application in R. v. Russell, 2001 SCC 53, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 804: [19] The scope of review on certiorari is very limited. Thus, review on certiorari does not permit a reviewing court to overturn a decision of the statutory tribunal merely because that tribunal committed an error of law or reached a conclusion different from that which the reviewing court would have reached. Rather certiorari permits review only where it is alleged that the tribunal has acted in excess of its assigned statutory jurisdiction or has acted in breach of the principles of natural justice which, by the authorities, is taken to be an excess of jurisdiction [20] the reasons for limiting the scope of supervisory remedies is clear Critically, the preliminary inquiry is not meant to determine the accused s guilt or innocence. That determination is made at trial. The preliminary inquiry serves a screening purpose, and it is not meant to provide a forum for litigating the merits of the case against the accused. The limited scope of supervisory remedies reflects the limited purpose of the preliminary inquiry. And referring to Estey J. in Skogman v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 93, the Court noted: [21] No evidence on an essential element of the charge, he held, cannot amount to sufficient evidence, and s. 548 of the Criminal Code authorizes the committal of an accused to trial only if there is sufficient evidence : Thus, [w]here the record does not include evidence relating to each essential element of the charge brought against the accused, a committal of the accused to stand trial can be brought forward by way of a writ of certiorari to a superior court and can be quashed. [case references removed; underlining in original]
3 Page: 3 [4] In sum, Mr. Linklater is not entitled to a de novo review of the evidence and I am not to substitute my opinion of the evidence for that of the preliminary inquiry judge. [5] Thus, the issue in this case is: did the preliminary inquiry judge exceed his jurisdiction, in committing Mr. Linklater to stand trial for second degree murder by making such order arbitrarily or where there was no evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed could return a verdict of guilty? THE PARTIES POSITIONS [6] Counsel agree that the case against Mr. Linklater is comprised only of circumstantial evidence. From a no evidence standpoint, the critical argument is that on the evidence presented at the preliminary inquiry Mr. Linklater was not identified as a perpetrator in Mr. Sanderson s killing; this would have to be an inference drawn from the evidence accepted by the jury. [7] Defence counsel argues this lack of identification on two bases: (i) that Mr. Linklater was not, and could not be, identified at all in any of the evidence presented at the preliminary inquiry; and, more so, (ii) that the evidence fails to place him at the scene of the killing or participating in the killing. [8] Crown counsel disagrees, saying Mr. Linklater is clearly seen in video evidence and a reasonable inference that can be drawn from the whole of the evidence is that Mr. Linklater must have been at the scene of the crime and must have participated. While there may be competing inferences, they say it is for
4 Page: 4 the jury to decide whether this view is the only reasonable inference from all of the evidence of guilt. FACTS [9] There is no direct evidence of who killed Mr. Sanderson or exactly when. There is direct evidence that Mr. Sanderson was stabbed 33 times in his home; that he died of significant blood loss, and; that a fire occurred in Mr. Sanderson s home around the same time. Indeed, he was discovered dead because of the fire. The fire department was dispatched at about 3:34 a.m. They were called shortly before, by Mr. Sanderson s neighbour. [10] The critical circumstantial evidence in issue surrounds Mr. Sanderson s death, notably before-and-after video captured at various times from numerous business s security cameras. All of the seized video was reduced to a 22 minute video collage, comprised of multiple pieces of video. The quality of some video was much better than other parts, but for purposes of the preliminary inquiry, or the issue before me, this is not of much moment because the quality of much of it was sufficient for identification purposes. [11] As to the video before his death, Mr. Sanderson is seen leaving the Northern Hotel at about 1:24 a.m., with two people, a male and female. Various snippets of video seem to show the three of them headed in the general direction of Mr. Sanderson s home. There is then a gap in the video of about two hours. The video after that time shows the male and female walking away
5 Page: 5 from the general area of Mr. Sanderson s home and generally toward Mr. Linklater s mother s home. To be clear, the video does not show anyone immediately nearby Mr. Sanderson s home, either before or after his death. [12] As a matter of convenience, and to put all the evidence in context, I pause to deal with defence counsel s first argument: that Mr. Linklater was not, and could not be, identified from any evidence at the preliminary inquiry. I disagree. Even if he did not expressly say so, clearly the preliminary inquiry judge reasonably found that the male in the before-and-after video was or could be Mr. Linklater. There is a striking resemblance and physical similarity between the male and Mr. Linklater; similar clothing as that worn by the male in the video was found in Mr. Linklater s mother s house, and; an officer testified that he arrested Mr. Linklater, with Ms. Knott, a few days later based on his comparison of them to the video and a photo from the video. [13] Moving on, there is also other evidence that is relevant to Mr. Linklater: first, Ms. Knott is materially linked to Mr. Sanderson s death. She made a police statement admitting to being at Mr. Sanderson s home during the relevant time. Also, in the after-death video, she is not wearing shoes and a pair of running shoes was found in Mr. Sanderson s home with his blood on them. They are similar in appearance to the shoes worn by her at the Northern Hotel around 1:24 a.m. Further, Mr. Sanderson s DNA was found on some articles she had that night; second, Mr. Linklater is materially linked to Ms. Knott that night:
6 Page: 6 o they are seen together in the before-and-after video; o clothing resembling clothing worn by Mr. Linklater and Ms. Knott in the video was found in Mr. Linklater s mother s home. Specifically, a Chicago Bulls baseball cap, a green and black checked plaid jacket, and a black hooded sweatshirt that had Mr. Sanderson s blood on it that appears consistent to clothes Ms. Knott is seen wearing in the before-and-after video; o on arrest a few days later, Ms. Knott was in possession of a black backpack that had Mr. Sanderson s DNA on it. A similar backpack can be seen in the video being carried alternately by Mr. Linklater and Ms. Knott; and o in the before-and-after videos, Ms. Knott and Mr. Linklater exhibit close familiarity with each other in terms of how they interact and are touching, and they alternately wear the ball cap and carry the backpack. [14] Finally, in the video Ms. Knott has difficulty walking and standing, particularly in the before-death video. I described this as wobbling. Mr. Linklater seems to be physically supporting her at times. ANALYSIS [15] R. v. Arcuri, 2001 SCC 54, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 828, was also a situation where there was a review of an order for committal on second degree murder. The accused was charged with first degree murder, but the preliminary inquiry
7 Page: 7 judge did not find any evidence of planning and deliberation. The legal issue before the Supreme Court of Canada involved the treatment of exculpatory evidence. Nevertheless, the court restated: [21] The question to be asked by a preliminary inquiry judge under s. 548(1) of the Criminal Code is the same as that asked by a trial judge considering a defence motion for a directed verdict, namely, whether or not there is any evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed could return a verdict of guilty Under this test, a preliminary inquiry judge must commit the accused to trial in any case in which there is admissible evidence which could, if it were believed, result in a conviction. Further, the court noted that the test was the same whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial: [29] However, where the Crown s evidence consists of, or includes, circumstantial evidence, the judge must engage in a limited weighing of the whole of the evidence (i.e. including any defence evidence) to determine whether a reasonable jury properly instructed could return a verdict of guilty. [30] In performing the task of limited weighing, the preliminary inquiry judge does not draw inferences from facts. Nor does she assess credibility. Rather, the judge s task is to determine whether, if the Crown s evidence is believed, it would be reasonable for a properly instructed jury to infer guilt. Thus, this task of limited weighing never requires consideration of the inherent reliability of the evidence itself. It should be regarded, instead, as an assessment of the reasonableness of the inferences to be drawn from the circumstantial evidence. [underlining in original] [16] Here, the preliminary inquiry judge was alive to the proper test for committal as outlined above. He referred to the seminal case of United States of America v. Shephard, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067, and also, in respect of parties, R. v. Dunlop and Sylvester, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 881, which stands for the
8 Page: 8 proposition that mere presence at the scene of a crime does not amount to criminal culpability for the crime itself. Having said this, one must be cautious because the fact scenario of a specific case may reasonably allow a trier of fact to conclude that an accused is more than merely present and as such a party culpable for the crime. Finally, the judge was aware that this is a circumstantial case. [17] While brief, the judge laid out his assessment of some of the evidence before him that may be taken into account by a trier fact in drawing inferences in this circumstantial case. He said at page 5: There s a connection to the accused. There s a proximity to the scene. There s timing I would argue before and after but that s an issue to be dealt with. Relationship between the individuals. The characteristics of the individuals when you re talking about lack of shoes, backpack, other kinds of things, and other exhibits that have been filed. And these aren t dealt with individually. They re dealt with cumulatively. That s what circumstantial evidence is about, the law that we learned as law students. Is there a black thread among the white threads in putting those matters to get cumulative effect of those possible circumstances? And as I say, different conclusions can be drawn but I only have to determine whether they couldn t be drawn from, reasonably drawn from the circumstances that s before the court. And I m of the view that with respect to the test in Shepherd that that has been met with respect to the murder As a matter of completeness, I note that he discharged Mr. Linklater on other counts. [18] I return to defence counsel s second argument. Stated somewhat differently, the crux of this circumstantial case is whether a reasonable inference could be drawn from the whole of the evidence that Mr. Linklater was present and participated in the killing of Mr. Sanderson. Clearly, from the excerpt noted
9 Page: 9 above, the preliminary inquiry judge thought that such an inference could be drawn. [19] The before-and-after video connects Mr. Linklater and Ms. Knott, and other evidence connects her to the homicide. On this view of the evidence, a properly instructed jury could reasonably conclude that Mr. Linklater was with Mr. Sanderson and Ms. Knott before his killing and was with Ms. Knott shortly after. But what about during the time of the killing? After all, there is a twohour gap in the video. Here, defence counsel argues that such a conclusion would be speculation and as such a trial judge would be compelled to take the case away from the jury and direct an acquittal. [20] The Crown s submission is that Mr. Linklater was with Ms. Knott throughout the time shown on the before-and-after video; that Ms. Knott was present at Mr. Sanderson s killing, and; that Ms. Knott, because of her small stature and apparent drunkenness as seen in the video, could not have inflicted 33 knife wounds to Mr. Sanderson by herself. They also point to the short timeframe (about two hours), the interactions between Mr. Linklater and Mr. Knott as seen on the before-and-after video and finding the ball cap and clothes (particularly the black sweatshirt with Mr. Sanderson s blood on it) at Mr. Linklater s mother s home. [21] Considering all of the evidence and links between Ms. Knott and the killing, and between Mr. Linklater and Ms. Knott, I defer to the preliminary inquiry judge s assessment -- which is that a properly instructed jury could
10 Page: 10 reasonably conclude that Mr. Linklater was present and participated when Mr. Sanderson was killed. As the judge noted, there could be alternate inferences, but that is for the jury to decide. Effectively, he concluded that the Crown s argument respecting the circumstantial evidence sufficiently hit the mark of reasonable inferences, for the test on committal, that it should be left to the jury to decide, despite defence counsel s argument as to alternate interpretations, inferences and conclusions that could otherwise be drawn. [22] I do not agree that this result is a demonstration of circular logic or that this case is simply about Mr. Linklater being in the general vicinity at the time of the homicide. With respect, it seems that the trap the defence counsel has fallen into is one that we instruct juries to avoid. That is, we instruct them to look at the evidence cumulatively and not in isolation or piece by piece. [23] At the end of the day, considering all of the evidence, circumstantial and direct, and reasonable inferences that could be drawn from that, along with the principles set out in Russell, Shephard, Arcuri, R. v. Eckstein, 2012 MBCA 96, 288 Man.R. (2d) 26 and also R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, to which I was not referred, I am satisfied that the preliminary inquiry judge did not exceed his jurisdiction in committing Mr. Linklater to trial for murder and that I have no grounds to interfere with that decision. The test for committal is a low bar and the test for review on a certiorari application a high one. On the evidence before me, I would not take this case away from a jury on a directed verdict application.
11 Page: 11 [24] There are many things that the jury will have to assess in terms of the weight to be given to the evidence or absence of evidence, and the drawing of reasonable inferences, including those inconsistent with guilt, regarding the core issues in this case. But that is their function as the trier of facts. No doubt they will be properly instructed respecting drawing of reasonable inferences, avoiding speculation, not filling in gaps in the evidence and the test for conviction in a circumstantial case, all as recently reviewed in Villaroman. I make no comment on the strength or weakness of the case or of a likely outcome. CONCLUSION [25] I find that the preliminary inquiry judge did not exceed his jurisdiction by ordering Mr. Linklater to stand trial for second-degree murder, as there is evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could find that Mr. Linklater was a principal or party in Mr. Sanderson s homicide. The application for certiorari is dismissed. J.
COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20171206 Docket: CR 15-01-35066 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Ajak Cited as: 2017 MBQB 202 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) APPEARANCES: ) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) Libby Standil
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20181213 Docket: CR 17-01-36519 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Sutherland Cited as: 2018 MBQB 195 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) APPEARANCES: ) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) Jacqueline
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION
[Cite as State v. Vonnjordsson, 2009-Ohio-836.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) STATE OF OHIO C. A. No. 24157 Appellee v. KREIGHHAMMER VONNJORDSSON
More informationLeverick, F. (2007) The return of the unreasonable jury: Rooney v HM Advocate. Edinburgh Law Review, 11 (3). pp
Leverick, F. (2007) The return of the unreasonable jury: Rooney v HM Advocate. Edinburgh Law Review, 11 (3). pp. 426-430. ISSN 1364-9809 http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/37947/ Deposited on: 02 April 2012 Enlighten
More informationEvidence. 1. Introduction. 1.1 The trial process EA ss 11, Background to The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and NSW. 1.3 Taking Objections
Evidence 1. Introduction 1.1 The trial process EA ss 11, 26-29 1.2 Background to The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and NSW Uniform Evidence Law ALRC Evidence Interim and Final Reports would be useful for interpreting
More informationWatt s Criminal Law and Evidence Newsletter Issue No. 18
Watt s Criminal Law and Evidence Newsletter Case Law Highlights 2012 Issue No. 18 The Reasonable Grounds to Believe Standard The principles governing the legal standard of reasonable grounds to believe
More informationNOT DESIGNATED for PUBLICATION. STATE Of LOUISIANA. COURT Of APPEAL. first CIRCUIT 2007 KA 0885 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JESSICA KELLY
NOT DESIGNATED for PUBLICATION STATE Of LOUISIANA COURT Of APPEAL first CIRCUIT 2007 KA 0885 n V I f STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JESSICA KELLY On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court Parish of East
More informationBENJAMIN LEE LILLY OPINION BY v. Record Nos , JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 5, 1999 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Present: All the Justices BENJAMIN LEE LILLY OPINION BY v. Record Nos. 972385, 972386 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 5, 1999 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : KEVIN LUSTER, : : Appellant : No. 1013 WDA 2015 Appeal from the
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180914 Docket: CI 13-01-85087 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Paterson et al. v. Walker et al. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 150 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: SHARRON PATERSON AND ) RUSSELL
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180405 Docket: CR 15-01-35037 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Stuart Cited as: 2018 MBQB 54 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, ) Counsel: ) ) for the Crown
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT ROBERT W. ALVAREZ, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D16-802 [February 14, 2018] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 19, 2006 v No. 261895 Wayne Circuit Court NATHAN CHRISTOPHER HUGHES, LC No. 04-011325-01 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY March 3, 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: All the Justices STEPHEN JAMES HOOD v. Record No. 040774 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY March 3, 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Stephen James Hood was
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2005 BETWEEN: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Appellant AND ISRAEL HERNANDEZ ORELLANO Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley
More informationDRUNKENNESS AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER
Page 1 DRUNKENNESS AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER Criminal Law Conference 2005 Halifax, Nova Scotia Prepared by: Joel E. Pink, Q.C. Joel E. Pink, Q.C. & Associates 1583 Hollis Street, Ste 300 Halifax, NS B3J 2P8
More information1. The location or site where a criminal offence has taken place is called a(n)?
Canadian Law 2204 Criminal Law and he Criminal Trial Process Unit 2 Test Multiple Choice Name: { / 85} 1. The location or site where a criminal offence has taken place is called a(n)? death trap investigative
More informationTRIAL DIRECTIONS FOR THE LOCAL COURT ADVOCATE
TRIAL DIRECTIONS FOR THE LOCAL COURT ADVOCATE A paper prepared for the Legal Aid Annual Criminal Law Conference 2014 Slade Howell 1 & Daniel Covington 2 The operation of the general principles have a significance
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 8, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-2675 Lower Tribunal No. 13-26651 Eduardo Viera, Petitioner,
More information2 [4] And further that Angelica Cechirc, Alexander Verbon, and Pavel Muzhikov and Stanislav Kavalenka, between October the 28 th, 2003, and March the
Info # 04-01374, 04-01579, 05-01037, 04-01373 Citation: R. v. Muzhikov et al., 2005 ONCJ 67 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mr. Michael Holme for the Crown AND PAVEL MUZHIKOV STANISLAV
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL DIVISION) THE QUEEN. and URBAN ST. BRICE
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL DIVISION) SAINT LUCIA CLAIM NO. SLUHCR 20051 0039 BETWEEN: THE QUEEN Complainant and URBAN ST. BRICE Defendant Appearances: Mr.
More informationSIMPHIWE MABHUTI SONTSHANTSHA JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE: MTHATHA In the matter between CASE NO:121/08 THE STATE and SIMPHIWE MABHUTI SONTSHANTSHA Accused JUDGMENT PAKADE J: Background [1] The accused is charged
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 5, 2007
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 5, 2007 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANDRECO BOONE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 05-06682 Chris Craft,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. LeBel J.
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Graveline, 2006 SCC 16 [2006] S.C.J. No. 16 DATE: 20060427 DOCKET: 31020 BETWEEN: Rita Graveline Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent OFFICIAL ENGLISH
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: R v JMS, 2018 MBCA 117 Date: 20181102 Docket: AR17-30-08983 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice Marc M. Monnin Madam Justice Diana M. Cameron Madam Justice Karen I. Simonsen
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No WDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID J. MCCLELLAND Appellant No. 1776 WDA 2013 Appeal from the
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Origin: Appeal from a decision of the Master of the Court of Queen's Bench, dated June 5, 2013 Date: 20131213 Docket: CI 13-01-81367 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Jewish Community Campus of Winnipeg Inc.
More informationS08A1636. SANFORD v. THE STATE. A jury found Alvin Dexter Sanford guilty of malice murder, felony murder,
Final Copy 284 Ga. 785 S08A1636. SANFORD v. THE STATE. Hines, Justice. A jury found Alvin Dexter Sanford guilty of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault (with a deadly weapon), possession of
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Oct 21 2014 07:12:28 2013-KA-02103-COA Pages: 14 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DARRELL ROSS BROOKS APPELLANT VS. NO. 2013-KA-02103 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
More informationCASE NO. 1D Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ROBERT DALE PURIFOY, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D14-4007
More informationMEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH
MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH August 11, 2016 16-16 No Charges Approved in Vancouver Police Shooting Victoria - The Criminal Justice Branch (CJB), Ministry of Justice and Attorney General, announced
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: R. v. Mullins-Johnson, 2007 ONCA 720 DATE: 20071019 DOCKET: C47664 BETWEEN: COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO O CONNOR A.C.J.O., ROSENBERG and SHARPE JJ.A. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and Respondent WILLIAM
More informationPRELIMINARY INQUIRIES
PRELIMINARY INQUIRIES ) These materials were prepared byandrew Mason; of Dufour &Company law firm.saskatoon,. Saskatchewan for the SaskatchewanLegal Education Society Inc. seminar, Criminal. Law Essentials;.
More informationEyewitness identification is evidence received from a witness who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court.
Eyewitness identification is evidence received from a witness who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court. Eyewitness identifications are among the most common forms of evidence presented
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 5, 2002 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 5, 2002 Session MICHAEL JOSEPH SPADAFINA v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Benton County No. CR451 Julian
More informationCanadian Judicial Council Final Instructions. (Revised June 2012)
Canadian Judicial Council Final Instructions (Revised June 2012) Table of Contents Table of Contents...2 Glossary...4 III - FINAL INSTRUCTIONS...5 8. Duties of Jurors...5 8.1 Introduction... 5 8.2 Respective
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 258 MDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RONALD ALAN RUEL Appellant No. 258 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationTable of Contents. CON-1 (Mental Disorder) (2013-3)
Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION... 1-1 1.1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE... 1-1 (a) Pre-1992 Amendments... 1-1 (b) The Reform Movement... 1-4 (c) The Swain Decision... 1-6 (d) The 1992 Amendments: Part XX.1
More informationCitation: R v Beaulieu, 2018 MBCA 120 Date: Docket: AR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: R v Beaulieu, 2018 MBCA 120 Date: 20181114 Docket: AR17-30-08802 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Madam Justice Holly C. Beard Madam Justice Jennifer A. Pfuetzner Madam Justice Janice
More informationPRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND THE APPLICATION OF R. v. K.G.B.
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND THE APPLICATION OF R. v. K.G.B. Brian D. Williston THE ORTHODOX RULE Until recently, the "orthodox rule" dictated that prior inconsistent statements made by a non-party
More informationChapter 4 Types of Evidence
Chapter 4 Types of Evidence Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing. It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in
More informationPage CarswellOnt 543,
Page 1 2011 CarswellOnt 543 R. v. Taylor Her Majesty the Queen v Bryan Taylor Ontario Court of Justice K.N. Barnes J. Heard: January 20, 2011 Judgment: January 20, 2011 Docket: None given. Thomson Reuters
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Summary conviction appeal from a Judicial Justice of the Peace and Provincial Court Judge Date: 20181031 Docket: CR 17-01-36275 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Grant Cited as: 2018 MBQB 171 COURT OF
More information4. RELEVANCE. A. The Relevance Rule
4. RELEVANCE A. The Relevance Rule The most basic rule of evidence is that it must be relevant to the case. Irrelevant evidence should be excluded. If we are trying a bank robbery case, the witnesses should
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2014 CLIFTON OBRYAN WATERS STATE OF MARYLAND
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1640 September Term, 2014 CLIFTON OBRYAN WATERS v. STATE OF MARYLAND Woodward, Kehoe, Arthur, JJ. Opinion by Kehoe, J. Filed: March 3, 2016 *This
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180831 Docket: CR 14-15-00636 (Thompson Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Clemons Cited as: 2018 MBQB 144 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA IN THE MATTER OF: AND IN THE MATTER OF: The Criminal Code of
More informationS09A0155. TIMMRECK v. THE STATE. A jury found Christopher Franklin Timmreck guilty of the malice murder
Final Copy 285 Ga. 39 S09A0155. TIMMRECK v. THE STATE. Carley, Justice. A jury found Christopher Franklin Timmreck guilty of the malice murder of Brian Anderson. The trial court entered judgment of conviction
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Bradley, 181 Ohio App.3d 40, 2009-Ohio-460.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90281 THE STATE OF OHIO, BRADLEY, APPELLEE,
More informationTHE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE versus SAMSON SHUMBAYARERWA and THE MAGISTRATE, HARARE (TSIKWA N.O)
THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE versus SAMSON SHUMBAYARERWA and THE MAGISTRATE, HARARE (TSIKWA N.O) 1 HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE HUNGWE & MANGOTA JJ HARARE, 9 & 23 October 2014 Criminal Appeal T Madzingira,
More informationPRACTICE DIRECTIVE I Preliminary Inquiry. Amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada regarding Preliminary Inquiries came into force on June 1, 2004.
PRACTICE DIRECTIVE I Preliminary Inquiry Amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada regarding Preliminary Inquiries came into force on June 1, 2004. Statutory Provisions: Criminal Code - Part XVIII 1. No
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20171121 Docket: YO 16-01-35006 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Green Cited as: 2017 MBQB 181 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) APPEARANCES: ) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) Cindy Sholdice
More informationState of New Hampshire. Chasrick Heredia. Docket No CR On February 8, 2019, following a jury trial, defendant, Chasrick Heredia, was
State of New Hampshire NORTHERN DISTRICT morning hours of May 11, 2018. Manchester police officers Michael Roscoe and this altercation Officer Roscoe intervened in the struggle and employed force against
More informationSuperior Court of Justice
Superior Court of Justice B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) - AND - ANTONIO PROVOLONE (Applicant) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ASIAGO, J.: The History of Proceedings 1. On July 7, 2007, Matt s
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs July 8, 2014
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs July 8, 2014 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANDRE WILSON Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 12-01044 Lee V. Coffee,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY. : O P I N I O N - vs - 7/15/2013 :
[Cite as State v. Hobbs, 2013-Ohio-3089.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2012-11-117 : O P I N I O N - vs - 7/15/2013
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 11-95
DO NOT PUBLISH STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DEXTER O NEIL MAYES STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 11-95 APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. 09-K-1075
More informationHearsay confessions: probative value and prejudicial effect
Hearsay confessions: probative value and prejudicial effect Don Mathias Barrister, Auckland Hearsay confessions In order to raise a reasonable doubt about the accused s guilt, the defence may seek to call
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between CESARE BURKE. And HIS WORSHIP DEPUTY CHIEF MAGISTRATE MR. PATRICK MARK WELLINGTON
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. C.V. 2013-05041 Between CESARE BURKE Applicant/Claimant And HIS WORSHIP DEPUTY CHIEF MAGISTRATE MR. PATRICK MARK WELLINGTON Respondent/Defendant
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.)
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.) Ontario Court of Appeal Sharpe, Gillese and Watt, JJ.A. August 12, 2013. Summary:
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 15, 2016 v No. 328430 Gratiot Circuit Court APRIL LYNN PARSONS, LC No. 14-007101-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2009
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2009 LUKCE AIME, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D07-1759 [February 18, 2009] MAY, J. The sufficiency of the
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 16, 2008
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 16, 2008 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TYCORRIAN CHANDLER Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 86183
More informationNOTIFICATION THAT INQUIRY WILL NOT BE RESUMED. Sections 70(1)(a) and 70(2), Coroners Act 2006
Cor 9 COR REF: CSU 2010-PNO-000261 NOTIFICATION THAT INQUIRY WILL NOT BE RESUMED Sections 70(1)(a) and 70(2), Coroners Act 2006 IN THE MATTER of Scott Grahame Guy The Secretary, Ministry of Justice, Wellington
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 3, 2002 V No. 233210 Oakland Circuit Court ROBERT K. FITZNER, LC No. 00-005163 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA Claim No. ANUHCV 2011/0069 In the Matter of the Constitution of Antigua & Barbuda. -and- In the Matter of an Application
More informationWho s who in a Criminal Trial
Mock Criminal Trial Scenario Who s who in a Criminal Trial ACCUSED The accused is the person who is alleged to have committed the criminal offence, and who has been charged with committing it. Before being
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) -AND-
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS Claim No. BVIHCV2009/0162 BETWEEN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) THE QUEEN Applicant -AND- RICKY TERRENCE POWELL Respondent Appearances:
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 4, 2004 v No. 245057 Midland Circuit Court JACKIE LEE MACK, LC No. 02-001062-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: R v Gladue, 2018 MBCA 89 Date: 20180910 Docket: AR18-30-09021 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Madam Justice Holly C. Beard Madam Justice Diana M. Cameron Madam Justice Jennifer A. Pfuetzner
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 23, 2014 v No. 316581 Wayne Circuit Court WILLIAM THEODORE-HARRY OLDS, LC No. 13-001170-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationInvestigative Negligence. Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board (2007)
Investigative Negligence Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board (2007) By Gino Arcaro M.Ed., B.Sc. Niagara College Coordinator Police Foundations Program I. Commentary Part 1 Every police
More informationOverview of Pretrial & Trial Procedure. Basic Concepts. What is Proof (Evidence) David Hamilton City Attorney Reno & Honey Grove Tx.
Overview of Pretrial & Trial Procedure David Hamilton City Attorney Reno & Honey Grove Tx Basic Concepts PresumptionofInnocence:BurdenonStateto erase presumption by proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Absolute
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 15, 2007 v No. 266910 Wayne Circuit Court JAMES ALBERT HAMBRICK, LC No. 05-003808-01 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN BRIEF SECTION 24(2) OF THE CHARTER EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE. Learning Objectives. Materials. Extension. Teaching and Learning Strategies
OF THE CHARTER EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE Learning Objectives To develop students knowledge of section 24(2) of the Charter, including the legal test used to determine whether or not evidence obtained through
More informationSUPREME COURT OF YUKON
SUPREME COURT OF YUKON Citation: Yukon Human Rights Commission v. Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication, Property Management Agency and Yukon Government, 2009 YKSC 44 Date: 20090501 Docket No.: 08-AP004
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,494 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, BRIAN ADAM NAMBO, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,494 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. BRIAN ADAM NAMBO, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Sedgwick District Court;
More informationNORTH CAROLINA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES BENCHBOOK VOIR DIRE ON PRETRIAL AND IN-COURT IDENTIFICATION
VOIR DIRE ON PRETRIAL AND IN-COURT IDENTIFICATION Robert Farb (UNC School of Government, Mar. 2015) Contents I. Introduction... 1 II. Findings of Fact... 2 III. Conclusions of Law... 7 IV. Order... 9 V.
More informationPRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Lemons, Koontz, and Agee, JJ., and Stephenson, S.J.
PRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Lemons, Koontz, and Agee, JJ., and Stephenson, S.J. DWAYNE LAMONT JOHNSON v. Record No. 060363 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN March 2, 2007 COMMONWEALTH
More informationThird District Court of Appeal
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 18, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-2418 Lower Tribunal No. 09-33121 Tyler Darnell, Appellant,
More informationYOU VE been CHARGED. with a CRIME What YOU. NEED to KNOW
YOU VE been CHARGED with a CRIME What YOU NEED to KNOW 1 This booklet is intended to provide general information only. If you require specific legal advice, please consult the appropriate legislation or
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : ALEXIS DELACRUZ, : : Appellant : No. 547 EDA 2014 Appeal
More informationCourt Security Act 2005 No 1
New South Wales Contents Part 1 Part 2 Preliminary Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Objects of Act 2 4 Definitions 2 5 Operation of Act and effect on other powers 5 Entry and use of court premises
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 23, 2010 v No. 294650 Wayne Circuit Court ROBERT JAMES HOWARD, LC No. 2008-11733-01 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationBurdens of Proof and the Doctrine of Recent Possession
Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 1, Number 2 (April 1959) Article 6 Burdens of Proof and the Doctrine of Recent Possession J. D. Morton Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Follow this and additional
More informationRobert Morton v. Michelle Ricci
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-8-2009 Robert Morton v. Michelle Ricci Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1801 Follow
More informationUNIFORM EVIDENCE LAW GUIDEBOOK
UNIFORM EVIDENCE LAW GUIDEBOOK JOHN ANDERSON AND ANTHONY HOPKINS CHAPTER 2: PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS ASSESSMENT PREPARATION (PP 35-37) REVIEW PROBLEMS ADDITIONAL NOTES Case 1 (a) Facts in issue: Existence
More informationCase 3:18-cv GMS Document 1 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 15
Case :-cv-00-gms Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Katherine Belzowski, Staff Attorney State Bar Number 0 NAVAJO NATION DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 00 Window Rock, Arizona (Navajo Nation ( -0 Paul Gattone
More informationCircuit Court for Prince George County Case No.: CT B UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2018
Circuit Court for Prince George County Case No.: CT-17-0246B UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 192 September Term, 2018 ROBERT BERRIS HILTON v. STATE OF MARYLAND Graeff, Arthur,
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,477 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DALLAS CLAYBORN, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,477 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. DALLAS CLAYBORN, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2017. Affirmed. Appeal from Sedgwick
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 2000 Session. STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROSALIND MARIE JOHNSON and DONNA YVETTE McCOY
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 2000 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROSALIND MARIE JOHNSON and DONNA YVETTE McCOY Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County Nos.
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) THE QUEEN AND
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) SAINT LUCIA CLAIM NO. SLUHCRD 2009/1108-1125 BETWEEN: THE QUEEN AND 1. ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ 2. JUAN SALAZAR 3. LOPEZ JOSE 4. ROMEL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 17, 2000 STATE OF TENNESSEE V. EZRA SHAWN ERVIN AND ANDREW MCKINNEY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 17, 2000 STATE OF TENNESSEE V. EZRA SHAWN ERVIN AND ANDREW MCKINNEY Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County No. 222789
More informationPolicy of the Provincial Court of British Columbia
Information Regarding Bans on Publication Policy Effective Date: Policy Code: February 28, 2011 ACC-3 Scope of Application: Applies to Provincial Court of proceedings. Purpose of Policy To provide a general
More informationTHE DEATH OF SAMMY YATIM AND THE TRIAL OF JAMES FORCILLO
THE DEATH OF SAMMY YATIM AND THE TRIAL OF JAMES FORCILLO Introduction In this resource you will learn about the death of Sammy Yatim and the criminal trial of Constable James Forcillo, the police officer
More informationTHE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES (TRIBUNALS) ACT, 1973
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES (TRIBUNALS) ACT, 1973 (ACT NO. XIX OF 1973). [20th July, 1973] An Act to provide for the detention, prosecution and punishment of persons for genocide, crimes against humanity,
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DOMINICK STANIN, SR. Argued: November 9, 2017 Opinion Issued: March 30, 2018
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationMOTION FOR REHEARING
E-Filed Document Nov 12 2015 20:00:37 2014-KA-01283-SCT Pages: 10 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI IRA DONELL BOWSER a/k/a IRA BOWSER a/k/a IRA D. BOWSER APPELLANT V. NO. 2014-KA-01283-SCT
More informationCase Name: R. v. Khosa. Between Regina, and Harmohinder Singh Khosa. [2014] B.C.J. No BCSC CarswellBC W.C.B.
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. Khosa Between Regina, and Harmohinder Singh Khosa [2014] B.C.J. No. 215 2014 BCSC 194 2014 CarswellBC 305 111 W.C.B. (2d) 876 Docket: 59889-2 Registry: Chilliwack British Columbia
More informationPRE-TRIAL COORDINATION PROTOCOL ADULT CHARGES
PRE-TRIAL COORDINATION PROTOCOL ADULT CHARGES This Protocol is subject to change. It is expected that over time changes will be made and the Protocol will be amended. Please refer to our website at www.manitobacourts.mb.ca
More informationONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: DATE: 2014 10 29 COURT FILE No.: Toronto 1001438-5 BE WEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - AND- MATTHEW WARD=JACKSON - AND- SANYA VASILJEVIC Before Justice K. Caldwell Reasons
More information