R v Bevinetto

The appellant was convicted of one count of rape following a trial in the Supreme Court. The complainant and the appellant’s girlfriend both testified that the complainant was asleep when the appellant was engaging in intercourse with her. The complainant testified that she awoke to the appellant’s girlfriend yelling that the appellant had “tried to rape” her. The appellant’s girlfriend maintained that she did not use the term “rape” but rather “tried to attack” her. The appellant gave evidence that the complainant was awake and had consented to the sexual intercourse. The appellant appealed the conviction on multiple grounds, including that the verdict was against the evidence, that the Crown prosecutor’s comments regarding moaning and vaginal discomfort constituted a miscarriage of justice, and that the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury as to the complainant’s motive to lie.

The court found that the complainant’s evidence was consistent and reliable, and that the appellant’s girlfriend’s insistence that she did not use the term “rape” did not undermine the reliability of the complainant’s evidence. The court also found that the Crown prosecutor’s comments regarding moaning and vaginal discomfort were within the bounds of appropriate comment and did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice. The court further found that the defence case did not require the trial judge to direct the jury as to the complainant’s motive to lie, as the defence did not seek such a direction and the case was not run in such a way as to give rise to a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court found that the jury was entitled to believe the complainant’s evidence and that the evidence supported the verdict of guilt. The court found that the Crown prosecutor’s comments did not improperly influence the jury, and that the trial judge’s failure to direct the jury as to the complainant’s motive to lie did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice. The conviction and sentence of the appellant were therefore affirmed.