R v Pucci

Case [2013] QCA 390

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pucci [2013] QCA 390

PARTIES:

R
v
PUCCI, Larry Enrico
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 246 of 2012
DC No 169 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

20 December 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 August 2013

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Muir and Fraser JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Leave for the appellant to adduce further evidence refused.

2.   Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where, following a trial, the appellant was convicted of entering premises by breaking and stealing – where, Mr Takagaki, the owner of the Fruit Barn gave evidence that his normal practice was to place the three tills in the locked safe – where Mr Takagaki found the front glass door of the Fruit Barn ajar, with a large hole in the bottom glass panel, and the safe door open – where the appellant’s blood was found on a piece of paper inside the safe – where the issue at trial was not whether the subject offence had occurred, but whether the appellant had committed the offence – where the appellant gave evidence that he was walking home while intoxicated and put his foot through the door as he was frustrated – where the appellant gave evidence that he continued walking and subsequently discovered that he had cut his foot, although blood had not soaked through his sock – where the appellant contended that, given the entirely circumstantial nature of the prosecution case, a reasonable jury could not exclude beyond reasonable doubt a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, that is, that the appellant had only broken the glass – where the appellant relied on the fact that there was no evidence that the door of the safe had been forced and that Mr Takagaki was 99 per cent sure that he had locked the safe – where the appellant’s version of events was uncorroborated – whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – LARCENY OR STEALING – OWNERSHIP – EVIDENCE – where the indictment alleged that the premises of Takagaki Pty Ltd were broken into and that a sum of money was stolen – where the appellant contends that the prosecution did not lead any evidence to establish these facts – where the elements of the offence were left to be proved by inferences to be drawn from the general body of evidence – where defence counsel had notice of the alleged irregularity regarding proof of incorporation and declined the opportunity to object – where s 421 of the Criminal Code does not require the identification of the owner of the subject premises – where s 564(3) of the Code…

Continue reading R v Pucci

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Pucci [2013] QCA 390
Case
[2013] QCA 390
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pucci involved the appellant, who was convicted of breaking and entering premises and stealing. The trial judge found the appellant guilty after considering the evidence presented, which included the testimony of Mr Takagaki, the owner of the Fruit Barn. Mr Takagaki testified that the front glass door of the store was ajar, with a large hole in the glass panel, and the safe door was open. The appellant’s blood was found on a piece of paper inside the safe. The central issue at trial was not whether the crime had occurred, but whether the appellant had committed it. The appellant argued that the prosecution’s case was entirely circumstantial and that a reasonable jury could not exclude beyond reasonable doubt a hypothesis consistent with innocence, namely, that the appellant had merely broken the glass. The appellant’s version of events was that he was walking home while intoxicated, and he accidentally put his foot through the door in frustration, subsequently discovering that he had cut his foot. However, no blood had soaked through his sock. The appellant also argued that the prosecution did not establish ownership of the premises or the sum of money stolen, as required by the indictment. The appellant relied on the lack of evidence that the safe door had been forced and Mr Takagaki’s assertion that he had locked the safe.

The court had to determine whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence. It also needed to address the appellant’s argument that the prosecution did not sufficiently prove the facts alleged in the indictment, particularly the identification of the premises’ owner and the sum of money stolen. The court found that the trial judge’s verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable, given the evidence presented. The court noted that the appellant’s version of events was uncorroborated and that the jury was entitled to infer guilt from the totality of the evidence, including the appellant’s blood found inside the safe. Regarding the ownership and sum of money stolen, the court held that the indictment’s alleged irregularities were not fatal to the prosecution’s case. The court found that section 421 of the Criminal Code did not require the identification of the premises’ owner, and section 564(3) of the Code provided that it was sufficient to describe the offence in the words of the Code. Therefore, the identification of the owner in the indictment was considered mere surplusage, and there was sufficient proof of the matters alleged in the indictment.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to adduce further evidence was refused. The court held that the trial judge’s verdict was well-supported by the evidence and that the prosecution had sufficiently proven the elements of the offence. The appellant’s arguments regarding the circumstantial nature of the prosecution’s case and the alleged irregularities in the indictment were not persuasive. The court’s decision underscores the importance of the jury’s role in weighing the evidence and drawing inferences in criminal trials.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave for the appellant to adduce further evidence refused.

2. Appeal dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.