Between
Her Majesty the Queen, respondent, and
Trevor Vanleeuwen, appellant
[1994] O.J. No. 3845
File No. C15614
Ontario Court of Appeal
Toronto, Ontario
Griffiths, Osborne and Weiler JJ.A.
September 28, 1994.
(4 pp.)
Criminal law - Offences against property - Possession of stolen goods - Evidence and proof.
Appeal from conviction. The appellant was convicted of six counts of property-related offences. The first and second counts related to possession of and theft of a stolen honda motor vehicle, while the third, fourth, fifth and sixth counts related to possession and theft of goods stolen from a motor vehicle. The trial judge found that the appellant was guilty of possession of the goods and applied the doctrine of recent possession. He also reasoned that possession of the stolen goods led to the conclusion that the appellant was in possession of the honda motor vehicle under count one and that he was therefore guilty of theft of the honda. The appellant challenged his conviction on all the counts.
HELD: Appeal allowed in part. Conviction on the counts of possession of and theft of a stolen motor vehicle quashed. There was evidence to support a finding of possession and therefore theft of the goods stolen from the motor vehicle. However, there was no evidence from which the trial judge could reasonably conclude that the appellant was in possession of and had therefore participated in the theft of the vehicle.
Counsel:
Lorne Sabsay, counsel for the appellant.
Eric Sibenmorgen, counsel for the respondent.
The judgement of the Court was delivered by
1 GRIFFITHS J.A. (endorsement):- This is an appeal against conviction on Counts 1 to 6 inclusively. No appeal is taken from Count 7.
2 Count 1 and 2 related to possession of and the theft of the stolen Honda motor vehicle.
3 The remaining counts through 3 to 6 related to possessing and theft of goods stolen from a motor vehicle.
4 The trial judge found that the appellant was guilty of possession of the goods and applying the doctrine of recent possession conviction laws of theft of these goods.
5 He also reasoned that possession of the stolen goods, led to the conclusion that the appellant was in possession of the Honda under Count 1 and that he was therefore guilty of theft of the Honda.
6 We think there was evidence to support a finding of possession and therefore theft of the goods stolen from motor vehicle. The fact that the appellant returned to the apartment with Mike and Castro, with one or more of them carrying the stolen loot, the statement made by Castro to when the appellant made no response, although he was the recent tenant, said, "We just got back from breaking into 60 or 60 cars." The fact that the appellant helped sort out the loot and invited one of the girls to take stolen shoes, was all sufficient to support the conviction in Counts 3,4,5 and 6.
7 However, in our view there was no evidence from where the trial judge could reasonably conclude that the appellant was in possession of and had therefore participated in the theft of the Honda. Accordingly the appeal is accepted in part. The conviction on Count 1 and 2 are quashed. The sentence having been served, we make no disposition on that.
GRIFFITHS J.A.
