In R. v. Roncaioli, the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified the approach the sentencing judge should take in determining the appropriate sentence where the basis of the jury's verdict is ambiguous. Laskin J.A., writing for the court, held that sentencing judge must sentence according to his or her independent determination of the facts, consistent with the jury's verdict.
The appellant was a retired medical doctor who was convicted of manslaughter in the death of his wife and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. At trial, it was unclear whether the jury had found him guilty based on criminal negligence or an unlawful act, but the trial judge sentenced the appellant on the basis of her own finding that an aggravated assault had taken place.
The appellant referred to previous Ontario Court of Appeal decisions R v. Cooney and R. v. Craig to argue that the sentencing judge is "obligated to give to the convicted accused the benefit of the doubt regarding the basis on which he was convicted by the jury". Because the basis of the jury's verdict was unclear, he argued that he should therefore have been sentenced based on the less morally blameworthy charge of manslaughter by criminal negligence. Laskin J.A. found the previous jurisprudence inconsistent with Supreme Court of Canada decisions R. v. Brown, R. v. Tempelaar and R. v. Ferguson. He affirmed the trial judge's factual findings and grounds for the sentence imposed, including the necessity of denouncing the abuse of a doctor's special skills "to cause deadly harm." After dismissing the conviction appeal, Justice Laskin dismissed the sentence appeal as well.May 13, 2011
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2011/2011ONCA0378.htm
Webnesh Haile & Minsuk Kim
No comments:
Post a Comment