The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. A.V. offers valuable insights into the complexities of jury instructions, particularly in cases involving multiple counts and the inherent risk of improper evidentiary reasoning. This case underscores the critical importance of clear judicial guidance on cross-count reasoning and propensity evidence, with significant implications for criminal defence strategies.
Understanding Cross-Count Reasoning in Criminal Proceedings
A central issue in R. v. A.V. is the concept of cross-count reasoning. This refers to the legally problematic practice of a jury using evidence presented in relation to one count on an indictment to infer guilt on a separate, distinct count.
Each count represents a discrete allegation, requiring independent consideration and a separate verdict. The fundamental principle is a jury’s decision on each count must be based solely on the evidence directly relevant to that specific charge, without being influenced by evidence related to other counts. For example, if an accused is charged with theft and assault, evidence related to the alleged theft cannot be used to infer a propensity for violence relevant to the assault charge.
The Inadmissibility of Propensity Evidence and its Relationship to Cross-Count Reasoning
Closely related to cross-count reasoning is the general inadmissibility of propensity evidence (sometimes referred to as character evidence). Propensity evidence involves using past behaviour or character traits to suggest a predisposition to commit the crime currently charged. The concern is that this type of evidence invites prejudicial reasoning, leading jurors to believe that because someone acted in a certain way in the past, they are more likely to have committed the present offence. This reasoning is considered fundamentally unfair and can lead to wrongful convictions.
In the context of multiple counts, the risk is the jury might improperly use evidence from one count not just to decide that count but also to form a general impression of the accused’s character, which then influences their assessment of the other counts. This is where the concepts of cross-count reasoning and propensity evidence intersect: the improper use of evidence across counts can effectively introduce propensity reasoning through the back door.
Allegations of Multiple Sexual Assaults
The R. v. A.V. case provides a concrete example of these principles in action. The accused was convicted on six counts of sexual assault involving six different complainants who were employees at his adult massage parlour. The alleged offences occurred over several years and involved a similar modus operandi. The Crown initially sought to have the evidence of each complainant admissible across all counts as similar fact evidence, arguing it demonstrated a pattern of behaviour. However, the trial judge rejected this application.
Challenging Deficient Jury Instructions Regarding Cross-Count Use of Evidence
Despite the exclusion of similar fact evidence, the jury convicted the accused on all counts. The core issue on appeal was the adequacy of the trial judge’s instructions to the jury. The accused argued the instructions failed to adequately address the risk of the jury engaging in improper cross-count reasoning and using the evidence to infer propensity.
Court of Appeal Emphasizes the Need for Specific Instructions
The Court of Appeal overturned the convictions and ordered a new trial, finding the jury charge was indeed deficient. The Court emphasized that when similar fact evidence is not admitted, and there is a tangible risk that the jury might improperly use evidence from one count to decide another, the trial judge has a positive obligation to provide clear and explicit instructions. These instructions must explicitly state:
- Separate and Distinct Counts: Each count is a separate and distinct charge that must be considered independently.
- Independent Verdicts: The verdicts on each count do not have to be consistent. A jury could reasonably acquit on one count and convict on another.
- Evidence Confined to Each Count: The decision on each count must be based solely on the evidence relevant to that specific count and not on evidence presented in relation to other counts.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that even in the absence of admitted similar act evidence, if there is a risk that the jury might engage in prohibited propensity reasoning, a specific limiting instruction is mandatory. This instruction must unequivocally direct the jury that they cannot use evidence presented in relation to one count to infer the accused has a general propensity or character that makes them more likely to have committed the other alleged offences.
Addressing the Crown’s Arguments Regarding the Sufficiency of the Charge
The Crown argued that while the instructions given were not perfect, they were sufficient to caution the jury against improper reasoning. The Crown cited an instruction advising the jury not to make adverse findings based on the accused’s occupation as the owner of an adult massage parlour and not to conclude he was the “type of person” to commit sexual acts.
The Court rejected this argument, finding the instruction too narrowly focused on the accused’s profession. It failed to address the broader concern of using evidence from one count to infer guilt on another. The Court emphasized the need for an explicit instruction prohibiting the use of evidence from one count to infer a general disposition or character that would make the accused more likely to commit the other alleged offences.
The Crown also argued that using the term “named complainant” in the singular made it clear to the jury that they were only meant to consider the evidence related to that complainant. The Court found this, plus the absence of an objection by the defence, was not enough to discharge the requirement for explicit instructions on avoiding cross-count contamination of evidence.
The Curative Proviso and the Critical Importance of Proper Jury Instructions
The Crown also requested the application of the “curative proviso” under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, which allows an appellate court to uphold a conviction despite an error if it is satisfied that the error did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
The Court declined to apply the curative proviso. While the Crown contended that the trial judge erred in excluding similar fact evidence, the Court determined that even if the evidence had been admissible, proper and detailed instructions regarding its use would have been essential. These instructions would have included guidance on evaluating similarities and dissimilarities between the alleged incidents, cautions against simply assuming all complainants were truthful based on the credibility of one, and explicit warnings against propensity reasoning. Without these crucial instructions, the Court could not confidently assert that the verdict would have remained the same.
R. v. A.V. and the Critical Role of Clear Jury Instructions
The R. v. A.V. decision is a powerful reminder of the delicate balance within the criminal justice system. It underscores the critical role of meticulously crafted jury instructions, particularly in cases involving multiple counts and the ever-present risk of improper evidentiary reasoning. This case clarifies the judiciary’s obligation to provide explicit guidance to juries, preventing the conflation of distinct allegations and the prejudicial use of propensity evidence.
The Court of Appeal’s decision to order a new trial highlights the gravity of instructional errors. It reaffirms the fundamental right of every accused person to a fair trial based solely on admissible evidence properly considered. This decision reinforces that procedural fairness is not merely a technicality but a cornerstone of justice.
Contact Hicks Adams in Toronto for Experienced Criminal Defence in Trials and Appeals
Hicks Adams stands out for its exceptional ability to handle criminal trials and appeals with skill and precision. Our firm is home to experienced criminal defence lawyers who regularly appear before the Ontario Court of Appeal and have argued before the Supreme Court of Canada. Reaching the Supreme Court of Canada—and winning—is an achievement few law firms can claim. Our lawyers have done it. With over a century of combined experience, we have successfully appealed a wide range of criminal convictions.
Our firm represents clients across Ontario in a broad spectrum of criminal charges, including drug offences, sexual assault, murder/manslaughter, and DUI. To schedule a free consultation, please call us at 416-975-1700 or contact us online.
