2019 QCCA 562, 2019 QCCA 562

Lombardi c. R. 2019 QCCA 562 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-006389-173 (500-01-116790-152, SEQ.ACC.001) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: March 27, 2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE NICOLE DUVAL HESLER , C.J.Q. MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE , J.A. JOCELYN F. RANCOURT , J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL DUSTIN LOMBARDI Mtre JEFFREY K. BORO (Jeffrey K. Boro) RESPONDENT COUNSEL HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mtre MARIE-ÈVE MAYER ( Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions ) On appeal from a guilty verdict, pronounced on February 23, 2017 by a jury presided by the Honourable Claude Champagne of the Superior Court, District of Montreal.

DESCRIPTION : Appeal from a guilty verdict pronounced by a jury – Murder. Clerk: Mai Nguyen Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault. HEARING 11:37 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 11:38 Submissions by Mtre Boro. 11:45 Exchanges between the Court and Mtre Boro. 12:14 Submissions by Mtre Mayer. 12:25 Exchanges between the Court and Mtre Mayer. 12:32 Rebuttal by Mtre Boro. 12:34 Recess of the hearing. 12:49 Resumption of the hearing. 12:50 BY THE COURT : Judgment – See page 3. 12:52 Conclusion of the hearing.

Mai Nguyen Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Appellant’s principal contention is that he should have been tried separately from his co-accused Jerome Graham Campbell, whose evidence was used to buttress the weakness of the Crown’s identification evidence. [ 2 ] In response, the Crown emphasizes that the evidence would have been the same had the Appellant been tried separately.

The Appellant, in answer states that that is uncertain. [ 3 ] Regarding the alleged weakness of the identification evidence, it must be pointed out that the pack of cigarettes bearing the Appellant’s prints and found close to the location of the shooter is strong corroborating evidence.

In any event, the judge properly addressed this issue in his directives to the jury and the Appellant has been unable to identify any error. [ 4 ] As to the Motion for severance, the trial judge was right to find that the co-accused’s statement did not really incriminate the Appellant and that it did not result in any injustice towards the Appellant. [ 5 ] We are of the unanimous view that the appeal must fail. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 6 ] DISMISSES the appeal.

NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, C. J.Q. MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.A. JOCELYN F. RANCOURT, J.A.