R v Merlino

The appellant, Merlino, was convicted by a jury on two counts of robbery armed with an offensive weapon, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment. Merlino appealed against his conviction on several grounds, including whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury on circumstantial evidence, whether there was prejudice caused by the trials being run together, whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to the jury being made aware that Merlino and his alibi witness had been in prison, and whether the Crown's cross-examination invited adverse inferences relating to the onus of proof and the right to silence of Merlino. The appeal was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the trial judge's directions to the jury on circumstantial evidence were correct, whether the running together of the trials caused prejudice to Merlino, whether the jury's awareness of Merlino and his alibi witness's prior imprisonment caused a miscarriage of justice, and whether the Crown's cross-examination invited adverse inferences that impacted Merlino's onus of proof and right to silence.

The court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury on circumstantial evidence were correct, as they accurately reflected the law on the matter. The court also found that the running together of the trials did not cause prejudice to Merlino, as the evidence was properly segregated and the jury was properly directed to consider each count separately. Regarding the jury's awareness of Merlino and his alibi witness's prior imprisonment, the court found that this did not cause a miscarriage of justice, as the evidence of the two offences was distinct and there was no suggestion that the jury based their verdict on this information. Finally, the court found that the Crown's cross-examination did not invite adverse inferences that impacted Merlino's onus of proof and right to silence, as the questions asked were proper and relevant to the case.

The appeal was dismissed, and Merlino's convictions and sentences were upheld.