The Court of Appeal for Ontario set aside a sexual assault conviction and ordered a new trial after it identified a number of issues. Justice Carole Brown sentenced Manuel Esquivel-Benitez to 22 months’ imprisonment following a judge-alone trial.
After entering an appeal against the conviction, the Court of Appeal for Ontario found three issues dispositive of the conviction. The appeal judges set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial.
What issues did the Court of Appeal have?
The Court of Appeal’s first issue raised was that the trial judge erred by treating the credibility issue as a contest between the complainant and the appellant. The standard of proof in criminal law cases is beyond a reasonable doubt. Where there is a reasonable doubt, the accused must be found not guilty. In this case, however, the appeal court judges found:
“On several occasions throughout her reasons, the trial judge framed her conclusions in language indicating she was deciding which version of events she preferred and that reasonable doubt did not play a role in her findings.”
Rather than treating the trial as a contest between two competing versions of events, Justice Brown should have considered whether the “whole of the evidence” gave rise to a reasonable doubt, the Court of Appeal ruled.
Failure to recognize possible motive
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge also failed to address evidence the complainant may have had a motive to fabricate her testimony.
Mr. Esquivel-Benitez and the complainant had sexual intercourse on a couch after partying with friends. The complainant’s husband was asleep in an adjacent room. The husband walked in and flew into a violent rage.
On the walk home, the husband repeatedly asked his wife “Tell me this guy abused you” or “Did he abuse you?”.
The Court of Appeal found the fact the complainant only told her husband she had been assaulted after they returned home was relevant to the issue of whether she had a motive to fabricate a story. The trial judge did not give this possible evidence proper consideration, dismissing it as “part of an ongoing myth regarding sexual assault”, the Court of Appeal said.
Justice Brown should have considered whether the complainant had motive to fabricate and, if so, how that impacted her credibility.
Presence of accused at trial
The third, and possibly most egregious error on the judge’s part was that she used Mr. Esquivel-Benitez’s presence in the courtroom as a negative factor in assessing his credibility.
Twice in her ruling Justice Brown mentioned the defendant’s testimony mirroring that of the complainant. While a person can be accused of tailoring evidence, the Crown made no allegation of this at the trial.
The Court of Appeal took issue with the trial judge using the defendant’s Mr. Esquivel-Benitez’s presence against him, saying:
“…accused persons have not only a statutory obligation but also a right to be present at their trial, grounded in their constitutionally guaranteed rights to a fair trial and to make full answer and defence.”
The Court of Appeal also stated there were other issues it could have raised but the three it focused on were enough to allow the appeal and order a new trial.