Right this moment the Court docket of Attraction launched the judgment of R. v. Boudreau, 2012 ONCA 830 that reminded legal professionals the extent to which they could correctly advocate their positions in closing addresses, notably because it pertains to Crown counsel on this attraction. The attraction arose out of a double murder that was motivated by thefts and counter-thefts of marijuana vegetation from develop operations after which exacerbated by suspicion and mutual emotions in direction of the identical lady.
Sarcasm, inflammatory remarks, and hypothesis don’t have any place in Crown closings.
The appellant raised 4 points in complete, however the one most legally important was that of closing addresses. It was conceded on attraction that the Crown’s closing tackle was sarcastic and inflammatory in tone and speculative and factually inaccurate in content material, no less than partly. In dismissing this floor of attraction, and in the end dismissing the attraction as an entire, the Court docket acknowledged plenty of rules of regulation that every one counsel ought to remember when addressing a jury in a closing tackle. On the facet of propriety, the Court docket famous that
- Counsel are entitled to a good diploma of latitude of their closing addresses to the jury;
- A closing tackle is an train in advocacy and is a fruits of a tough fought adversarial continuing;
- Crown counsel, like another advocate, is entitled to advance his or her place forcefully and successfully; and,
- Juries anticipate that each counsel will current their positions in that method and little question anticipate and settle for a level of rhetorical ardour in that presentation.
Nevertheless, the Court docket made it clear that there are limits to what counsel could correctly do in a closing tackle. They restated these limits as:
- Whereas the Crown could argue its case forcefully, it should abstain from inflammatory rhetoric, demeaning commentary and sarcasm;
- The Crown should not misstate the information or the regulation; and,
- The Crown should not invite the jury to have interaction in hypothesis or specific private opinions about both the proof or the veracity of a witness
The Court docket of attraction discovered that regardless of the feedback made by the Crown, that was all corrected by the trial decide who, in a “blunt and strongly-worded addendum” recognized and explicitly mentioned a number of statements by Crown counsel that he thought-about fell into the realm of sarcasm and hypothesis. He additionally explicitly instructed the jury that counsel’s opinion of witnesses was irrelevant. Such a cost to the jury overcame any notion of unfairness within the Court docket of Attraction’s view and this floor of attraction was dismissed.
Different examples of improprieties in Crown closings.
Different examples of improprieties for Crown counsel embody, however are usually not restricted to:
- When the Crown’s closing assertion strongly implies that the jury ought to infer guilt from the accused’s silence, it prejudices the accused’s proper to a good trial: Biladeau, 2008 ONCA 833, at paras. 21,31-36;
- Crown counsel to repeatedly specific a private opinion in regards to the appellant’s guilt and his lack of credibility, whereas vouching for the honesty and integrity different witnesses: R. v. B.(D.M.) (Ont. C.A., January 18, 2005) endorsement; and,
- It’s mistaken for the Crown to current speculative propositions, unsupported by the proof, in an try to elucidate away gaps within the Crown’s case or inconsistencies within the proof: see R. v. Nugent (1995), 100 C.C.C. (3d) 89 (Ont. C.A.) at 94; R. v. Walker (1994), 90 C.C.C. (3d) 144 (C.A.) at 154, R. v. Tombran
