Eyewitness Identification and Appeals

Last week's Superior Court decision in R. v. Edwards, 2008 CanLII 10049 sets out, in a textbook fashion, the law regarding eyewitness identification and appeals from trial decisions based thereon.

While some might question the specific application in the case to the facts, the law is a useful summary:


"[16] It is well understood by this court that eyewitness identification is inherently unreliable.

R. v. Miaponoose 1996 CanLII 1268 (ON C.A.), (1996), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 445 (Ont.C.A.)

[17] It is also clear that some confirmatory circumstantial evidence is preferable to minimize the inherent dangers of eyewitness identification.

R. v. Quercia (1990), 60 C.C.C. (3d) 390 (Ont.C.A.)

[18] The appeal court is not to substitute its view for that of the trial judge, nor permit doubts it may have to persuade it to order a new trial.

R. v. Burns 1994 CanLII 127 (S.C.C.), (1994), 89 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (S.C.C.)

[19] The test on appeal is very clear and it is whether the verdict is one that a properly instructed jury, acting judicially, could reasonably have rendered.

R. v. Yebes 1987 CanLII 17 (S.C.C.), (1987), 36 C.C.C. (3d) 417 (S.C.C.) "

James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4