Misapprehension of Evidence

• < Procedure and Practice
• < Appeals

General Principles

The misapprehension of evidence is the "failure to consider evidence relevant to a material issue, a mistake as to the substance of the evidence, or a failure to give proper effect to the evidence."

Not every misapprehension of evidence will be a reversable error. The error must result in an unreasonable verdict, an incurable error in law or a miscarriage of justice.

The consideration of whether the misapprehension affected the verdict must be made "in light of the fundamental principle that a verdict be based exclusively on the evidence adduced at trial.

Recommended Analysis
The first step in analysis must be to consider the "reasonableness of the verdict". If it is unreasonable the accused is entitled to an acquittal. If the verdict is not unreasonable, the next step is to determine whether there was a "miscarriage of justice" which would entitle the accused to a quashed verdict and a new trial. Finally, if there is no miscarriage of justice the final step is to determine whether the misapprehension amounted to an error of law, which, if proven, places a burden on the Crown to establish that there was no miscarriage of justice warranting a new trial.

Magnitude of Error
Appeal for misapprehension of evidence requires that the error be must be "material, not peripheral, to the reasoning of the trial judge" and must "play an essential part in the reasoning process resulting in a conviction".

A failure to give the evidence the meaning urged by counsel does not amount to a misapprehension.

An allegation that the trial judge merely interpreted the evidence differently from a party does not amount to a misapprehension.

Totality of Evidence Rule (Lohrer Test)
It is an error of law for a trial judge to fail to consider the totality of the evidence. The failure must have "played an essential part, not just in the narrative of the judgment, but in the reasoning process resulting in the conviction". This is a grounds of appeal relates to misapprehension of evidence.

Biniaris Test vs Lohrer Test
The Binaris Test related to the reasonableness of a verdict. The difference between the two tests are that:

• the "Lohrer test applies when the attack is on a discrete finding of fact and it appears the conclusion of the trial judge on that fact is unsupported by any evidence, or perhaps that it is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence on that point";
• the Biniaris test "applies when the attack is on the overall strength of the case, and not any discrete finding of fact that is said to be plainly inconsistent with the uncontradicted evidence".

See Also

• Unreasonable Verdict
• Appeal on Miscarriage of Justice
• Appeal of an Error of Law