R. v. Rogers, 2002 BCSC 386

On September 11, 2001, a Provincial Court Judge convicted David Charles Rogers of threatening to kill a dog. The appellant and the main Crown witnesses, the Cutlans, appeared to have a history of conflict. According to them, the appellant yelled at them as they approached his home with their unleashed dog on the day in question, “Get your (f’ing) dog on the leash.” “Why you’re not on one,” Krista Cutlan responded. “Get your (f’ing) dog on a leash or I’ll (f’ing) kill it,” the appellant was said to respond. 

The appellant’s main complaint is that the trial judge did not properly instruct himself on how to apply reasonable doubt to the issue of credibility. According to the trial judge, the issue of credibility was viewed as a choice between the testimony of Crown witnesses and that of the appellant. A direction to the trier of fact in this manner is a legal error: R. v. W.(D.) (1991), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 397. (S.C.C.).

The appeal was dismissed.