http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/search/en/OntarioCourtsSearch_VOpenFile.cfm?serverFilePath=D%3A%5CUsers%5COntario%20Courts%5Cwww%5Cdecisions%5C2007%5Caugust%5C2007ONCA0575%2Ehtm
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
MCMURTRY C.J.O., DOHERTY, WEILER, ROSENBERG and MOLDAVER JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 696.3 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, S.C. 2002, C. 13;
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR MINISTERIAL REVIEW (MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE) SUBMITTED BY STEVEN MURRAY TRUSCOTT IN RESPECT OF HIS CONVICTION AT GODERICH, ONTARIO, ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1959, FOR THE MURDER OF LYNNE HARPER;
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION OF THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE TO REFER THE SAID CONVICTION TO THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO FOR HEARING AND DETERMINATION AS IF IT WERE AN APPEAL BY STEVEN MURRAY TRUSCOTT ON THE ISSUE OF FRESH EVIDENCE, PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 696.3(3)(a)(ii) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN(Respondent)
James Lockyer, Philip Campbell, Marlys Edwardh, Hersh E. Wolch, Q.C. and Jenny Friedland, for the appellant
- and -
STEVEN MURRAY TRUSCOTT(Appellant)
Rosella Cornaviera, Gregory J. Tweney, Alexander Alvaro and Leanne Salel, for the respondent
HEARD: January 31, February 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14, 2007
PART I – INTRODUCTION.. 7
Overview of the Case. 7History of the Proceedings Involving the Appellant. 9Overview of the Case for the Crown and the Defence in the Prior Proceedings. 15(i) Outline of the Crown’s case at trial 15(ii) Outline of the defence case at trial 18(iii) Outline of the Crown’s evidence in reply at trial 20(iv) Outline of the additional evidence led by the Crown on the first Reference. 21(v) Outline of the additional evidence led by the defence on the first Reference. 21Summary of the Majority Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the First Reference 23
PART II – THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. 24
The Terms of this Reference. 24The Relevant Provisions of the Criminal Code. 30(i) The Reference is treated as an appeal 30(ii) Our approach to the fresh evidence analysis. 33(iii) Section 683(1) and the admissibility of evidence on appeal 34(iv) The legal principles governing the admissibility of the fresh evidence relevant to the time of death 38(v) Why we do not address the appellant’s unfairness claim.. 47
PART III – WHEN DID LYNNE HARPER DIE?. 51
The Medical Evidence on the Time of Death in the Prior Proceedings. 53(i) Trial testimony of the Crown and defence experts. 53(ii) Closing arguments at trial on the medical evidence on time of death. 56(iii) Trial judge’s charge to the jury on time of death. 58(iv) Evidence on time of death at the 1966 Reference and the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of this evidence. 59(v) The significance of Dr. Penistan’s evidence on time of death. 63The Fresh Evidence on the Present Reference. 65(i) Dr. Pollanen. 67(ii) Dr. Knight 72(iii) Dr. Diamant 74Admissibility of the Expert Evidence on Time of Death. 78Archival Material Relating to the Credibility and Reliability of Dr. Penistan’s Evidence as to the Time of Death. 84(i) The unofficial versions of Dr. Penistan’s autopsy report 85(ii) Dr. Penistan’s “agonizing reappraisal”. 87Admissibility of the Archival Material Relating to Dr. Penistan’s Evidence. 90
PART IV – THE COURT’S APPROACH TO REMEDY.. 95
PART V – A HYPOTHETICAL NEW TRIAL.. 107
A. MATERIAL THAT DOES NOT AFFECT THE CROWN’S CASE.. 108
B. THE FOUR PILLARS OF THE CROWN’S CASE.. 118
THE FIRST PILLAR OF THE CROWN’S CASE: THE TIME OF DEATH.. 1181. The Pathology Evidence. 1192. The Entomology Evidence. 120(i) Introduction to the entomology evidence. 120(ii) Credibility of the entomology experts. 121(iii) The theory of forensic entomology. 122(iv) The critical entomology issues: identification of type and stage. 126(v) Conclusions on the type and stage of development of the larvae that Dr. Penistan removed from the body. 133(vi) What does the evidence on type and stage mean?. 137(vii) Conclusion on the value of the entomology evidence. 145THE SECOND PILLAR OF THE CROWN’S CASE: THE COUNTY ROAD EVIDENCE 1471. The Evidence Underlying the Crown’s County Road Theory. 151(i) Summary of the Crown’s County Road evidence. 151(ii) The cornerstones of the Crown’s County Road theory. 1562. The Treatment of the County Road Evidence by the Majority of the Supreme Court on the First Reference. 1653. The Archival Material and its Impact on the County Road Evidence. 168(i) The nature of the archival material 168(ii) Difficulties inherent in the Crown’s County Road theory. 170(iii) The impact of the archival material on the cornerstones of the Crown’s County Road theory at a hypothetical new trial 176(iv) A credible alternative to the Crown’s County Road theory. 190THE THIRD PILLAR OF THE CROWN’S CASE: THE APPELLANT’S POST-OFFENCE CONDUCT.. 1971. Arnold George’s Evidence. 199(i) George’s trial testimony. 200(ii) The archival material relating to George’s evidence. 206(iii) Conclusion on the three statements of Arnold George. 2192. The Appellant’s Alleged Fabrication of a Story that he saw Lynne get into a Vehicle at the Highway. 220(i) Trial evidence. 220(ii) Closing arguments. 223(iii) Trial judge’s charge to the jury. 223(iv) Evidence on the first Reference. 223(v) Impact of the new and archival material on the visibility issue. 2253. The Appellant’s Alleged Admissions to George and Other Children Concerning Lynne and Lawson’s Bush. 229THE FOURTH PILLAR OF THE CROWN’S CASE: THE PENIS LESIONS EVIDENCE 230(i) Introduction. 230(ii) Trial evidence. 231(iii) Closing arguments. 233(iv) Trial judge’s charge to the jury. 234(v) Evidence at the 1966 Reference. 236(vi) Additional material on penis lesions relied on at this Reference. 237(vii) Penis lesions evidence at a hypothetical new trial 238C. THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE AT A HYPOTHETICAL NEW TRIAL.. 2391. Impact of the Additional Material on the Evidence of Gordon Logan and Doug Oates 241Gordon Logan. 241Doug Oates. 247(i) Oates’ evidence at trial 247(ii) Impact of the archival material on Oates’ testimony. 2522. Lynne Harper’s Mood and the Possibility that She Hitchhiked. 2573. Karen Daum... 262(i) The 1959 witness statement of Karen Daum.. 262(ii) Daum’s 1959 statement and her recent testimony. 263(iii) The hearsay analysis: admissibility of the 1959 statement 269(iv) The weight to be attached to Daum’s 1959 statement 279(v) The value of Daum’s 1959 statement 281
D. THE CRIME SCENE.. 283
E. WHAT IS LEFT OF THE CROWN’S CASE?. 289
PART VI – CONCLUSION.. 299
LIST OF APPENDICES (PDF only)
Appendix 1: Map of the County Road and Surrounding AreaAppendix 2: Aerial Photograph of the County Road and Surrounding AreaAppendix 3: Walking Reconstruction Performed by Philip BurnsAppendix 4: Cycling Reconstruction Performed by Paul DesjardineAppendix 5: An Alternative County Road Theory Consistent with the Defence PositionAppendix 6: Trial exhibits of a Car Located at the Intersection of the County Road and Highway No. 8Appendix 7: New Photographs of Vehicles Located at the Intersection of the County Road and Highway No. 8Appendix 8: O.P.P. Photographs Purporting to Depict Gordon Logan’s View of the Bridge Tendered at the Supreme Court of Canada Reference in 1966Appendix 9: New Photographs of the View of the Bridge from Gordon Logan’s Position on the Rock in the Bayfield River
