EVIDENCE - Witnesses - Examinations - In chief - Limitations

Law360 Canada (February 3, 2021, 6:24 AM EST) -- Appeal by the accused from conviction and sentence for uttering forged prescriptions for Fentanyl and possession of stolen property. The appellant was sentenced to 12 months for the uttering convictions and six months consecutive for the possession of stolen property conviction. The Crown alleged Vickerson and Lambie operated a scheme in which they arranged for the appellant to use forged prescriptions to acquire Fentanyl patches from pharmacies. The appellant attempted on two occasions using a forged prescription to obtain Fentanyl patches. When the appellant was arrested, police found a box of documents in her home which belonged to her employer and included referral letters from other physicians and patient test results. The documents were no longer part of active patient files and would have been shredded. The employer testified that employees sometimes took documents for shredding to the hospital. The employer was not asked whether he was aware of any employees who took these documents to their home or whether it was any part of the appellant’s duties to shred documents at the office. The appellant did not testify. The Crown alleged she stole the documents from her employer. Lambie pleaded guilty before the appellant’s trial and testified for the Crown. In Lambie’s examination in-chief, he testified he received no benefit for testifying but that he was trying to change his life and do things the right way. The appellant argued Crown counsel’s questioning was misleading and violated the rule prohibiting questions during examination-in-chief designed exclusively to buttress the credibility of the witness. The appellant argued the conviction for possession of stolen property was unreasonable and that the jury instruction on this charge was inadequate....
LexisNexis® Research Solutions

Related Sections