R. v. Vetrovec, 2023 QCCA 1463

Greenwood c. R. 2023 QCCA 1463COURT OF APPEAL CANADAPROVINCE OF QUEBECREGISTRY OFMONTREAL No: 500-10-006612-186(500-01-072687-129) DATE: November 21, 2023 CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. PATRICK HEALY, J.A. MICHEL BEAUPRÉ, J.A. LESLIE DOUGLAS GREENWOODAPPELLANT – Accusedv. HIS MAJESTY THE KINGRESPONDENT – Prosecutor REASONS IN SUPPORT OF A JUDGMENT RENDERED FROM THE BENCH ON NOVEMBER 14, 2023 [1] At the hearing, the Court dismissed the appeal with reasons to follow.

These are those reasons. [2] Leslie Douglas Greenwood appeals from a verdict rendered on December 11, 2017, by a jury of the Superior Court, district ofMontreal, presided by the Honourable Michael Stober, on one count of conspiracy to commit one or several murders and two counts offirst-degree murder of Kirk Murray and Antonio Onesi. [3] In this case, two brothers, members of the conspiracy, testified against the appellant after an agreement with the Crown inexchange for their testimony. They carried out the murders, one of them being the shooter while the other had his back. The appellantwas the driver.

Jeffrey Lynds, deceased at the time of trial, was a member of a criminal organization. He had asked the appellant to drivethe brothers to Montreal from Nova Scotia to commit the murders and his words, recounted by the brothers, were considered admissiblepursuant to the co-conspirator’s exception to the hearsay rule. The brothers also testified about discussions with the appellant for theplanning of the murders. Their testimony was central to the case. The appellant testified and denied any guilty knowledge. [4] The issues raised by the appeal concern essentially the application of the Vetrovec warning: R. v.

Vetrovec, (SCC), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811. This aspect of the law is well known and sets out a special instruction to the jury as to the danger ofunconfirmed testimony of a witness who is untrustworthy. The judge has a great deal of latitude in formulating a warning, if any,appropriate to the circumstances of the case. [5] The judge did give a Vetrovec warning. The appellant essentially claims that the judge could have done a little more, a littledifferently, notably because two dubious witnesses were confirming one another. There is, however, no specific formula.

When thejudge gives the caution and it contains the recognized essential elements, as was the case here, deference is due: R. v. Khela, 2009 SCC 4, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 104. The appellant shows no other flaw and no grounds for intervention. [6] Finally, the appellant mounts an argument about circumstantial confirmative evidence being compatible with his testimony, thatindeed confirmed much of the brothers’ testimony, while denying all knowledge or discussion about killing anybody.

According to theappellant, the judge should have instructed the jury that they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused’s guilt is theonly reasonable inference that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence. At the hearing, the appellant added that it was more so ifthe jury disbelieved the two brothers, with the result that it was then faced with evidence that was only circumstantial. [7] This ground is unfounded. The Court is of the opinion that the evidence can hardly be characterized as circumstantial againstappellant.

Moreover, if the jury had rejected the testimony of the two witnesses, which it could have done, it had been correctlyinstructed on the application of reasonable doubt, and the appellant does not convince the Court that a specific instruction was necessary. [8] The judge made no error of law in his instructions, the Crown’s case against the appellant was overwhelming, and the verdict iscertainly reasonable. FOR THESE REASONS, AT THE HEARING, THE COURT: [9] DISMISSED the appeal.

MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. PATRICK HEALY, J.A. MICHEL BEAUPRÉ, J.A. Mtre Marie-Hélène Giroux MARIE-HÉLÈNE GIROUX AVOCATS For the Appellant Mtre Geneviève Langlois DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL AND PENAL PROSECUTIONS For the Respondent Date of hearing: November 14, 2023