#Found not guilty trial
The majority found that the acquittal should be entered on all charges, while the dissent found that a new trial was required ( R.V., paras 21-26). However, the court was split on the remedy. This is because “the touching required for the two convictions satisfied the legal definition of force for sexual assault” ( R.V., para 21). The court found that if the accused was guilty of sexual interference and sexual touching, then by definition, he was also guilty of assault ( R.V., para 21). The Court of Appeal (“COA”) unanimously decided that the convictions were inconsistent with the acquittal ( R.V., para 20). In the end, the jury returns the verdicts of guilty on the charges of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching, and not guilty on the charge of sexual assault ( R.V., para 19). Number two, not guilty of sexual assault but guilty of assault. There are only two choices to make on the verdict sheet, whereas the decision tree provides for three verdicts. “On the decision tree for count one, sexual assault versus the verdict sheet. 3 - Not guilty of invitation to sexual touching guilty ( R.V., para 15)Īfter approximately one hour of deliberation, the jury sent the following question to the trial judge about the decision tree (above): ( R.V., para 17) 2 - Not guilty of sexual interference guiltyĬount No. 1 - Not guilty of sexual assault guiltyĬount No. The jury was not given a written copy of the judge’s instruction and instead provided with a verdict sheet which listed the following verdicts that could be found:Ĭount No. If the jury finds that “touching” occurred, the accused can be found guilty on the charges of sexual inference and sexual touching ( R.V., para 14). The issue in this appeal mainly arises from the jury instruction, where the judge instructed that if they found that “force” had been applied, the accused would be found guilty of sexual assault ( R.V., para 12). At the trial, the defence maintained there were inconsistencies in the victim’s evidence and thereby the victim did not possess sufficient credibility to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( R.V., para 10).
This case deals with sexual assault by the accused, R.V., against the victim, the daughter of R.V.’s partner, from the ages of seven to thirteen ( R.V., para 9). These aforementioned offences may be triggering for some readers and I am sensitive to this issue. Before delving into the matter, I must caution readers that this case involves sexual conduct related offences in the Criminal Code, RSC, 1985 c C-46, such as sexual interference (section 151), invitation to sexual touching (section 152) and sexual assault (section 271). However, in R v R.V., 2021 SCC 10 the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) clarifies what happens in a scenario where an accused is found simultaneously guilty and not guilty. Generally, a criminal matter in Canada can only have two outcomes: (1) an accused is found not guilty and acquitted or (2) found guilty, whereby a conviction is entered.
0 kommentar(er)
