



COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: R. v. Leduc, 2014 ONCA 379

DATE: 20140512

DOCKET: C57193

Laskin, Pepall and Pardu JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Shawn Mallory Leduc

Appellant

Michael Purcell, for the appellant

Molly Flanagan, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: May 6, 2014

On appeal from the conviction entered on August 28, 2012
    and the sentence imposed on August 30, 2012 by Justice Bruce E. MacPhee of the Ontario
    Court of Justice.

ENDORSEMENT

[1]

The appellant was convicted of three burglaries.  The Crowns case
    depended on the evidence of the appellants accomplice, his girlfriend at the
    time.  The trial judge recognized that, in his words, the accomplice was not a
    perfect witness, but nonetheless accepted her evidence.  The appellants sole
    submission on appeal was that though the trial judge dismissed the Crowns
    similar fact application, he then used similar fact reasoning to bolster the
    accomplices credibility.

[2]

The appellant points to two examples in the trial judges reasons: first,
    the trial judges reference to the circumstances of the appellants arrest on
    the fourth burglary and, in particular, the trial judges reliance on the
    appellants possession of a screwdriver on this fourth burglary; and second,
    the trial judges observation of the accomplices overall role in the three
    burglaries for which the appellant was charged.

[3]

We do not accept the appellants submission.  The trial judge was
    entitled to take account of the screwdriver, a common tool used in a burglary,
    as circumstantial evidence supporting the accomplices credibility.  In doing
    so, the trial judge did not engage in propensity reasoning.

[4]

The trial judge was also entitled to rely on the totality of the
    evidence and consider the accomplices role in the three burglaries.  In doing
    so, he did not engage in similar fact reasoning.  The appellant was tried on
    three counts of break and enter, and the three informations were joined on the
    consent of counsel.  It was thus entirely appropriate for the trial judge to
    take account of the accomplices role in the three burglaries.

[5]

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

John Laskin J.A.

S.E. Pepall J.A.

G. Pardu J.A.


