R. v. Williams, 2019 ONCA 743

SCOPELITTI APPLICATIONS - CORBETT APPLICATIONS - DIRECTED VERDICT

Scopelitti Applications

Where self-defence is raised, the accused can bring a Scopelitti application to elicit evidence of the complainant’s prior criminal conduct to establish the complainant’s tendency of being an aggressor involved in this type fo conduct. A Scopelitti application will only be granted where the evidence is of sufficient probative value to justify its admission.

Evidence of a complainant’s past conduct does not become relevant by virtue of trial judge admitting evidence of the accused’s past criminal conduct.

Corbett Applications

Defence counsel can bring a Corbett application to limit or prohibit the use of an accused’s criminal record in cross-examination for the purpose of attacking the accused’s credibility. Corbett applications are allowed or dismissed, in whole or in part, at the discretion of the trial judge.

The entirety fo an accused’s criminal record is presumptively admissible. Trial judge is free to reject a Corbett application if criminal record is relevant to accused’s credibility, even if convicted offences are not crimes of “dishonesty” (i.e. possession of firearm).

Directed Verdict

After the closing of the Crown’s case, the defence is entitled to bring a directed verdict motion requesting the dismissal of the case. The judge cannot weigh the evidence, test the quality of reliability of admissible evidence or draw inferences of fact in determining “whether or not there is any evidence, direct or indirect, upon which a jury, properly instructed, could reasonably convict” (See R v Monteleone, 1987 SCC). A directed verdict will not be granted if there is any evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed could return a verdict of guilty.

Trial judge is not required to expressly state to jury that accused is being acquitted of withdrawn count. It is sufficient for trial judge to follow the Supreme Court’s suggested wording in Rowbotham: “I am withdrawinig the case from you and I am entering the verdict I would otherwise direct you to give as a matter of law.”