In an appeal from an acquittal, can the reasonableness of the trial judge’s reasons be considered to be inadequate?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from R. v. Cassidy, 2010 BCSC 418 (CanLII):
Of course, the trial court is entitled to get the evidence wrong and the sufficiency of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt standard is always a live issue. I am also mindful of the caution that inadequacies in the trial judge’s reasons should not be seized upon to create a ground of appeal based on unreasonable acquittal: see, for example, Kent v. The Queen (1994), 1994 CanLII 62 (SCC), 92 C.C.C. (3d) 344. In an appeal from an acquittal, an appellate court has no jurisdiction to consider the reasonableness of the trial judge’s verdict. The question of whether the proper inference has been drawn from the facts as well as an evidentiary sufficiency, is a question of fact.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Is a trial judge's failure to give reasons sufficient to determine that the trial judge erred in appreciation of a relevant issue or application of the evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a summary trial judge make a finding that a matter is not suitable for disposition by way of summary trial during the hearing of the summary trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the error of a learned trial judge in failing to consider whether there was an unexpected and not reasonably foreseeable presence of black ice? (British Columbia, Canada)
In what circumstances have the parties considered that the trial judge’s reasons of 27 September 2002 constitute a judgment for which an order can properly be drawn and entered? (British Columbia, Canada)
What factors will the Court consider in deciding whether it would be unjust to find that a summary trial is appropriate to consider the issues before deciding whether to proceed with a conventional trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
What are sufficient reasons are required for a trial judge to leave a defendant with no reasonable doubt? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the standard of review under s. 59(1) of the Rules of Appeal Court of Appeal for a motion of appeal against the decision of a judge on a question of mixed fact and law? (British Columbia, Canada)
When a trial judge fails to mention a relevant factor in the trial, does that mean that the relevant factor has not been considered? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a trial judge required to consider the reason for the delay in dealing with the first step in the two-segment test? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can an appellate court "reconsider" evidence presented at trial when there is a reasoned belief that the trial judge must have forgotten or misconceived the evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
