R. v. Creemer (1967), 4 N.S.R. 1965-69 546 (CA)
MLB headnote
R. v. Creemer and Cormier
Indexed As: R. v. Creemer and Cormier
Nova Scotia Supreme Court
Appeal Division
MacQuarrie and McKinnon, JJ.A.
and Pottier, J.
March 30, 1967.
Summary:
This case arose out of a charge or rape contrary to s. 136 of the Criminal Code. The trial judge sitting with a jury convicted the accused.
On appeal to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal the appeal was dismissed and the directions of the trial judge and jury verdict were affirmed. The Court of Appeal reviewed the authorities with respect to what constitutes corroborative evidence of a charge of rape. The Court of Appeal also reviewed the proper directions by a judge to a jury on a charge of rape – see paragraphs 22 to 24.
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal reviewed the corroborative evidence referred to by the trial judge in his charge to the jury which he stated were illustrative of corroborative evidence from which the jury could infer corroboration – see paragraphs 32 to 49. The Court of Appeal stated that while the trial judge improperly included some items which were not illustrative of corroborative evidence that there was no miscarriage of justice because a jury properly directed would necessarily have convicted each accused of rape. The Court of Appeal applied s. 592(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code – see paragraphs 55 and 58.
Criminal Law – Topic 655
Rape – Corroboration – The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that corroboration is evidence which tends to show the truth of the story of the complainant that the accused committed the crime – See paragraphs 28 to 30.
Criminal Law – Topic 656
Rape – Corroboration – What is independent evidence that may constitute corroboration – The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that testimony regarding torn clothing, bruises, characteristics of a car in which the rape took place, location of the car on a woods road, discovery of complainant’s lost earring in the car, and evidence of opportunity “bear the essential quality of independence” so as to be of corroborative value – See paragraphs 32 to 49.
Criminal Law – Topic 4353
Jury charge regarding corroboration – Charge of rape – The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that a judge should direct a jury as to what constitutes corroboration and should refer the jury to independent evidence which is illustrative of corroborative evidence and it is then for the jury to say whether corroborative inferences should be drawn – See paragraphs 22 to 24.
Criminal Law – Topic 5360
Evidence – Photographs – Admissibility – General principles – Charge of rape – Photo of complainant – The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that photographs verified by oath by a person able to speak to their accuracy are admissible – See paragraphs 16 to 19.
Words and Phrases
Corroboration
– The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word “corroboration” in the criminal law – See paragraphs 28 to 30.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Tolson, [1864] 4 F. & F. 103, folld. [para. 16].
R. v. Arthur Bannister (1936), 66 C.C.C. 38, folld. [para. 16].
R. v. O’Donnell (1936), 65 C.C.C. 299, folld. [para. 16].
Thomas v. The Queen, 15 C.R. 1; 103 C.C.C. 193, folld. [para. 22].
R. v. LaRochelle (No. 2), 16 C.R. 51, folld. [para. 24].
R. v. Plantus (1957), 118 C.C.C. 260, folld. [para. 25].
R. v. Fennell (1958), 119 C.C.C. 344, folld. [para. 25].
R. v. Baskerville, [1916] 2 K.B. 658, folld. [para. 28].
Rex v. Mullins (1848), 3 Cox C.C. 526, folld. [para. 29].
Reffell v. Morton (1906), 70 J.P. 347, folld. [para. 30].
Credland v. Knowler (1951), 35 Cr. App. R. 48, folld. [para. 30].
R. v. Hibbit and Ward (1959), 125 C.C.C. 1, folld. [para. 30].
Thomas v. Jones, [1921] 1 K.B. 22, refd to. [para. 33].
Oliver v. Jeffrey (1925), 89 J.P. 355, folld. [para. 33].
Cote v. The King (1941), 77 C.C.C. 75, folld. [para. 35].
Childs v. The Queen (1958), 122 C.C.C. 126, folld. [para. 38].
Harvey v. Anning (1903), 87 L.T. 687, folld. [para. 39].
Dawson v. McKenzie, [1908] S.C. 648, folld. [para. 39].
Rex v. Harrison (1956), 115 C.C.C. 347, folld. [para. 45].
R. v. Varcoe (1957), 117 C.C.C. 234, folld. [para. 46].
Gouin v. R., [1926] S.C.R. 539, folld. [para. 53].
Colpitts v. The Queen (1966), 47 C.R. 175, folld. [para. 55].
R. v. Hill (1926), 61 O.L.R. 645, folld. [para. 60].
R. v. Cummings, [1948] 1 All E.R. 551, folld. [para. 60].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code of Canada, 1953-54, c. 51, sect. 142, sect. 592(1)(b)(iii) [paras. 55, 58].
Counsel:
H.H. How, Q.C., for the appellants;
Gordon S. Gale, for the Crown.
