R. v. François (L.) (1994), 169 N.R. 241 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Lorne François (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)
(23677)
Indexed As: R. v. François (L.)
Supreme Court of Canada
LaForest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,
McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
July 14, 1994.
Summary:
The accused appealed his conviction for rape contrary to s. 144 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34. The accused claimed the jury’s verdict was unreasonable.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, Carthy, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at 64 O.A.C. 140, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, Major, Sopinka and Cory, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.
Criminal Law – Topic 5020
Appeals – Indictable offences – Setting aside verdicts – Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence – Section 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code provided that on the hearing of an appeal against conviction, a court could allow the appeal where it was of the opinion that the verdict should be set aside on the ground that it was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed an appeal court’s function on a review for unreasonableness – See paragraphs 12 to 16.
Criminal Law – Topic 5020
Appeals – Indictable offences – Setting aside verdicts – Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence – The accused was convicted by a jury of raping a 13 year old girl between 1979-1983 – There were inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony concerning the number of times she was raped – Her testimony also conflicted with statements she had made in affidavits filed in wardship proceedings concerning her child – The complainant explained by saying that she had suffered a memory block, but her memory had returned in a “flashback” in 1990 – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the guilty verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence – See paragraphs 12 to 27.
Criminal Law – Topic 5314
Evidence – Witnesses – Inferences – From silence of accused or failure to explain – The accused was charged with rape – The jury deliberated for 2.5 hours, then asked the judge whether the accused had the right to testify – The trial judge properly answered the question – The jury deliberated a further 10 minutes before returning a guilty verdict – The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the accused’s submission that the jury drew an adverse inference from his failure to testify – It could not be known what inferences the jury drew – Also, subject to the caveat that failure to testify could not be used to shore up a Crown case which did not otherwise establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a jury was permitted to draw an adverse inference from the accused’s failure to testify – See paragraphs 10 and 11.
Cases Noticed:
Kolnberger v. R., [1969] S.C.R. 213, refd to. [para. 11].
R. v. Corbett, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 275; 1 N.R. 258, refd to. [para. 11].
R. v. Vezeau, [1977] S.C.R. 277; 8 N.R. 235, refd to. [para. 11].
R. v. Johnson (P.D.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 189; 12 O.R.(3d) 340 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].
R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 59 C.R.(3d) 108; 17 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; [1987] 6 W.W.R. 97; 43 D.L.R.(4th) 424, refd to. [para. 12].
R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 134, refd to. [para. 12].
R. v. Warkentin, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 355; 9 N.R. 301, refd to. [para. 15].
R. v. Darnell and Newstead (1978), 40 C.C.C.(2d) 220 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].
R. v. R.C. (1992), 49 Q.A.C. 37 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. R.C., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 226; 153 N.R. 241; 55 Q.A.C. 63, refd to. [para. 16].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 686(1)(a)(i) [para. 1, et seq.].
Counsel:
Bruce Duncan, for the appellant;
James K. Stewart, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Duncan, Fava, Schermbrucker, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on May 5, 1994, before La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On July 14, 1994, the judgment of the Court was rendered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:
McLachlin, J. (La Forest, Gonthier and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 28;
Major, J., dissenting (Sopinka, Cory, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 29 to 89.
