Ramkaran c. R., 2009 QCCA 852
[39] La possession récente est une fiction juridique qui permet de conclure à une preuve suffisante du vol lorsque la possession du bien volé possède un caractère récent : R. c. Kowlyk, 1988 CanLII 50 (CSC), [1988] 2 R.C.S. 59.
[40] En outre, la possession récente peut relier le possesseur d'un objet volé à d'autres crimes que le vol. Dans l'arrêt Coffin c. La Reine, 1956 CanLII 94 (SCC), [1956] R.C.S. 191, c'est la possession d'objets ayant appartenu aux victimes qui reliait l'accusé au meurtre des trois chasseurs.
[41] Dans R. c. Chatten, [1988] O.J. no 831, une affaire où un des accusés avait en sa possession un collier qui appartenait à la victime d'un meurtre, le juge Finlayson de la Cour d'appel d'Ontario écrit pour la cour que la possession est un élément de preuve pouvant relier l'accusé au crime sans toutefois que cela conduise nécessairement à une condamnation pour meurtre au premier degré. Il écrit ceci :
The law as stated in the Coffin case is that if, after the commission of the crime, a person is found in possession of stolen goods associated with the crime, that person is called upon to account for the possession and must give an explanation which is not unreasonable or improbable. It does not follow that if the jury rejects the explanation they must find, as they did in the case on appeal, that such person was guilty of first degree murder. He might have had an involvement in the crime, but it would have been more appropriate if the trial judge had restricted himself to stating to the jury that their disbelief or any explanation that Leonard Chatten gave as to how he came to be in possession of the necklace could be confirmatory of the evidence of Lillicrap and that the necklace evidence was significant material evidence which they could use to link Leonard Chatten with the crime with which he was charged.
[Je souligne.]
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire