R v K (2015)
The defendant was charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault when Q was shot outside a downtown Edmonton nightclub. Q had left the club and walked into the parking lot after an altercation inside with the defendant. A gun shot rang out from the rear passenger window of a car in the parking lot. Q was struck in the head and the vehicle sped away from the scene. During the trial, Q testified that he saw “a glimpse” of the defendant in the back seat and he recognized the defendant’s voice when he called Q’s name just before the shooting. M, the driver, testified that the defendant got into the back seat of his car with another man. He said he saw the defendant lean out of the rear window with his arm “wrapped in a sweater” and then he heard a “pop”. Under cross-examination by Mr Rice, Q admitted that he told the police he could not recognize the man’s voice and M admitted that he lied to the police when he told them repeatedly that the shooter was a drug dealer named “Suk”. In his closing address to the jury, Mr Rice argued that M was an admitted liar and that Q was not a reliable witness because of his prior inconsistent statement to the police. The jury returned verdicts of not guilty on both counts.
R v L & L (1994)
Mr Rice was retained by one of the two defendants in this case to appeal her convictions for aggravated assault and failing to provide the necessaries of life. During the Crown Attorney’s cross-examination of her at trial, it came to light that he was using information that had not been disclosed to the defence. The trial judge dismissed applications for a stay of proceedings or a mistrial. The Alberta Court of Appeal held that there was no doubt that the Crown Attorney had a duty to disclose the information to the defendants prior to trial. Springing the information on the defendant during cross-examination was prejudicial and resulted in an unfair trial. The appeal was granted and a new trial was ordered.