Mr. Samaniego and his co-accused were convicted by a jury of possession of a loaded restricted firearm. It was alleged that Mr. Samaniego had brought the firearm to a nightclub and used it to threaten a security guard. The only evidence linking Mr. Samaniego to the firearm was the testimony of a security guard, who was a friend of the co-accused.The security guard’s credibility was central to the Crown’s case. The trial judge made several mid-trial rulings which had the effect of preventing Mr. Samaniego’s counsel from cross-examining the security guard on his prior statements to police and on his testimony at the preliminary inquiry. The trial judge also directed the jury that the security guard had made prior consistent statements but did not require those statement to be put into evidence.A majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld Mr. Samaniego’s conviction, finding that the trial judge’s rulings were within her proper discretion and were entitled to defence. The majority found that the trial judge’s rulings did not deprive Mr. Samaniego of material evidence necessary for his defence and did not impact the fairness of the trial. In dissent, Justice Paciocco would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related