Court File No _-CA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK File No._&- Ib: CA No. du dossier BETWEEN: Date of issue Jan_20, 2.0! Date d’émission DENNIS JAMES OLAND APPELLANT -and- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT NOTICE OF APPEAL (FORM 63B) 1. Appellant: Dennis James Oland 2. Date of Conviction: December 19, 2015 3. Name of Court: Court of Queen's Bench 4. Name of Judge: Justice John J. Walsh sitting with a jury 5. The Appellant was charged that he did: On or about July 6", 2011, at the City of Saint John, County of Saint John, Province of New Brunswick, commit second degree murder on the person of Richard Oland, contrary to the provisions of Section 235(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada and amendments thereto 6. Plea Not Guilty10. AA; Sentence: Dennis James Oland is to be sentenced on February 11, 2016. (The jury unanimously recommended the minimum period of 10 years parole ineligibility.) The lawyers at trial: (a) For the Crown: P. J. Veniot, Q.C., Patrick Wilbur, and Derek Weaver (b) For the Accused: Gary A Milller, Q.C., Alan D. Gold, and James R McConnell The Appellant appeals against his conviction on grounds of appeal that involve a question of law alone or applies for leave to appeal against his conviction on grounds of appeal that involve a question of fact or a question of mixed law and fact and, if leave is granted, appeals against his conviction. The Appellant will ask this Honourable Court to allow the appeal, quash the conviction and direct a verdict of acquittal to be entered or, in the alternative, order a new trial The grounds of appeal are: Unreasonable Verdict and Misdirection or Non-Direction a. The verdict of guilty of second degree murder was an unreasonable verdict in law and not one that a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could judicially have arrived at; b. The learned Trial Judge erred in his jury instructions regarding the evidence of Anthony Shaw and undermined the accompanying W.D. instruction by specifically characterizing the evidence of Richard land's non-response to cell phone and text communications as “inconsistent” with Mr. Shaw's evidence, when in fact it was not due to Richard Oland in fact being dead at the time of the non-response; ¢. The learned Trial Judge erred in concluding that evidence of the Appeliant's mistaken statement regarding the colour of his jacket worn on July 6, 2011 and the fact that clothing, including the jacket, was dry inconsistent" unless one fallaciously ‘begged the question’ and assumed such non-response was-3- cleaned, were events capable in law of amounting to “after-the-fact conduct”; d. The leamed Trial Judge misdirected the jury regarding the necessary findings they had to make to use the after-the-fact conduct as inculpatory evidence; e. (1) In his jury address Crown counsel engaged in speculation regarding an alleged spontaneous argument between the Appellant and Richard Oland supposedly because of the Appeliant’s “dire state" of “financial desperation” "beyond financial hardship" leaving him with “no place else to tum" leading to a request for money from Richard Oland which Richard Oland refused to give, or Richard Oland’s affair with Diana Sedlacek "weighing on the Dennis Oland’s mind over a year and a half", or some combination thereof, notwithstanding a complete absence of any evidence in support of such extravagant claims and without any such allegation being put to the Appellant during his cross-examination; and (2) The leamed Trial Judge erred in: i. failing to give a Browne v. Dunn instruction to the jury regarding the Crown's failure to cross-examine the Appellant on this issue; ii. falling to give effect to the defence objection to these arguments by Crown counsel and in failing to instruct the jury that there was no evidence to support the Crown's speculative arguments; and iii, expressly instructing the jury on the Crown's speculative argument despite the lack of any evidence in support and it is further respectfully submitted that this compounded the error, f. The learned Trial Judge erred in: i. not giving a Browne v. Dunn instruction to the jury regarding the Crown's failure to cross-examine the Appellant on the allegation that the Appellant was lying about the reason for his third attendance at Richard Oland's office; namely to pick up the camp logbook, Exhibit D-3, which he had forgotten;