An accused in a criminal case should be acquitted if there is evidence which either convinces a jury the accused is innocent or raises a reasonable doubt with the jury.
Today's decision in R. v. T.L., 2008 ONCA 763 makes it clear that a trial judge must expressly instruct the jury that an acquittal ought to follow if the jury, on reviewing exculpatory evidence, concludes that the evidence (even if not accepted) raises a reasonable doubt.
The Court holds:
[7] The trial judge in dealing with the defence position did not allude to the possibility that the jury could have a reasonable doubt based on the exculpatory evidence, even if they did not accept the exculpatory identification evidence as accurate. The trial judge, in summarizing the position of the defence, left it solely on the basis that the jury should accept that identification evidence as accurate. This is the way it was put to the jury by defence counsel. However, we think the trial judge should have made it clear to the jury that it was required to acquit even if it didn't believe the exculpatory identification evidence as long as that evidence left the jury with a reasonable doubt. He could have made that point in his "W.D." instruction or in his review of the position of the defence.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
No comments:
Post a Comment