Lescene Edwards v R
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | Brooks JA |
| Judgment Date | 19 January 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | JM 2018 CA 52 |
| Docket Number | SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 89/2013 |
| Year | 2018 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Jamaica) |
[2018] JMCA Crim 4
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
THE HON Mr Justice Brooks JA
THE HON Mrs Justice Sinclair-Haynes JA
THE HON Miss Justice P Williams JA (AG)
SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 89/2013
Patrick Atkinson QC, Mrs Valerie Neita-Robertson and Miss Deborah Martin for the appellant
Mrs Lisa Palmer-Hamilton, Mrs Karen Seymour-Johnson, Ms Michelle Salmon and Mrs Lenstr Lewis-Meade for the Crown
The main question for the jury in the trial of Mr Lescene Edwards was whether he had fatally shot Mrs Aldonna Harris-Vasquez in the bathroom of her home on 5 September 2003, or whether she had used his police service pistol to commit suicide. A significant element of the prosecution's case was expert evidence that Mr Edwards was the author of a note, allegedly written by Mrs Harris-Vasquez, which suggested that her death was by suicide.
The majority of the jury accepted the prosecution's case that it was a case of murder, and, on 31 October 2013, convicted Mr Edwards for that offence. On 5 November 2013, he was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to serve 35 years imprisonment before being eligible for parole. A single judge of this court granted Mr Edwards' application for leave to appeal from his conviction and sentence.
The prosecution's case was that on 5 September 2003, Mr Edwards, then a constable of police, was visiting Mrs Harris-Vasquez at her home at 5 Pinnacle Close in the parish of Saint Andrew. He is the father of her twin-children, who were born before her marriage to a man who is not a Jamaican, and who lived outside of Jamaica. Despite her marriage, Mr Edwards and Mrs Harris-Vasquez, who was called “Patricia” at home, continued to have an intimate relationship.
That day, Mr Edwards went to visit Mrs Harris-Vasquez at about 11:00 am. While they were alone together in Mrs Harris-Vasquez' bedroom, Mrs Maud Harris, who is Mrs Harris-Vasquez' mother, and with whom Mrs Harris-Vasquez shared the premises, dozed in the living-room of the house. Mrs Harris was awoken by a loud noise. Mr Edwards then came to her asking where Patricia was. She answered saying that he was the one who was with Patricia. After this answer he went back into the bedroom and returned to her. He was crying. She then followed Mr Edwards to the bathroom door, which was closed. He opened the door, which opened outward into a passage, and she saw Mrs Harris-Vasquez' body on the bathroom floor. Mrs Harris heard Mr Edwards say that “the girl” had used his gun to kill herself. Mrs Harris then fainted.
Mr Edwards called the police and a police team came to the premises. The police investigators processed the scene and examined Mrs Harris-Vasquez' body. It appeared that death was caused from a single gunshot, which went through her head, from the right to the left side. While the police team was processing the scene, a notebook was found on Mrs Harris-Vasquez' dresser, in her bedroom. The notebook was open to a page, on which was written, what seemed to be, a suicide note. The police took custody of that notebook, two other notebooks and a University of Technology form, firearm and several other items. They also took photographs of the scene. Swabs were taken of Mr Edwards' hands, as well as Mrs Harris-Vasquez'. His clothing was also taken for examination. Mrs Harris-Vasquez' body was taken to the morgue. The police, thereafter, ordered the scene to be cleaned.
On 11 September 2003, Mrs Harris-Vasquez' clothing was taken for examination. During the course of the investigation, Mr Edwards gave, at the request of the police, samples of his handwriting.
The notebooks, firearm, samples of Mr Edwards' handwriting, swabs, clothing and other material were sent to the relevant respective forensic experts. Testing of the clothing of both Mrs Harris-Vasquez and Mr Edwards, and of the swabs taken of their respective hands, did not reveal the presence of any gunshot residue (GSR). The prosecution's handwriting expert, retired Senior Superintendent of Police Mr Carl Major, who examined the note, handwriting in the notebooks and on the University of Technology form as well as the sample handwriting of Mr Edwards, opined, however, that the “suicide note”, otherwise referred to herein as “the questioned document”, had been written by Mr Edwards.
Mrs Harris-Vasquez' mood, in the period before her death, was also the subject of evidence placed before the jury. Various relatives spoke, with varying opinions, to her mood on her wedding day and in the week prior to her death. Mrs Harris testified, however, that earlier in the morning of the day of her death, Mrs Harris-Vasquez had a conversation with Mrs Harris, in which Mrs Harris spoke of having had a dream that she would lose one of her children. Mrs Harris testified that during that conversation Mrs Harris-Vasquez appeared to be crying.
Mrs Harris also said that her daughter and Mr Edwards did not have any quarrels or difficulties. Mrs Harris said that she also had a good relationship with him.
Mr Edwards gave sworn testimony in his defence. His case was that when he went to the house, Mrs Harris-Vasquez and he were talking about their respective future plans. She was to be going away to join her husband and Mr Edwards was also planning to go abroad. Mrs Harris-Vasquez, he said, expressed great sadness that they would be separating. They had sexual intercourse and while they were there in bed, she received a telephone call. She embarked on a telephone conversation with the caller. Mr Edwards formed the view that it was her husband, who had called her. Mr Edwards said that while she was having the telephone conversation he fell asleep.
He said that he was awakened by a loud explosion. Mrs Harris-Vasquez was not in the room and he noticed that his firearm was missing from the place on the dresser where he had put it, prior to him and Mrs Harris-Vasquez engaging in sexual intercourse. He ran to the living-room and asked Mrs Harris for Mrs Harris-Vasquez. Her answer not proving informative, he went back toward the bedroom area and noticed that the bathroom door was closed. He opened the door and the torso of Mrs Harris-Vasquez' body, which, he said, appeared to have been in a sitting position, slumped out onto the floor of the passage. He saw his firearm in her right hand in her lap. He took it up out of fright, holding it only with his right thumb and middle finger, but, immediately realising that he should not have picked it up, dropped it back into her lap. He called the police, put on his pants and shoes (he was then dressed only in underpants and undershirt), and waited in the living room for the police to arrive. Mrs Harris, he said, was present and conscious from the time that he spoke to her until the police arrived, at which time she fainted.
Mr Edwards said that although the police took his underpants from him at the scene, no exhibits were sealed in his presence and no note or notebook was shown to him or pointed out by him. He did hear mention of a note while at the house, but didn't see the “suicide note” until the following day. This was at the Duhaney Park Police Station, under which jurisdiction the premises fell. He denied having had anything to do with Mrs Harris-Vasquez' death and denied having written the “suicide note”.
Among the witnesses called to support his case was a handwriting expert, Mr Charles Haywood, who said that it was inconclusive as to whether Mr Edwards had written the “suicide note”. Mr Haywood said that, on his examination of the relevant material, which were photocopies of the original, “Mr Edwards or the writer of the specimen writing could not be eliminated, he could be identified, but he couldn't be eliminated either” (page 1186 of the transcript) as the author of the “suicide note”. He also opined that the author of the content of 12 sheets photocopied from one of the notebooks found in Mrs Harris-Vasquez' room, which was said to be her notebook, could not be excluded as the author of the “suicide note”. It could be gleaned from Mr Haywood's evidence that the method of collecting the sample handwriting from Mr Edwards was not in accordance with what Mr Haywood described as, “best practice”.
Apart from the testimony of the various witnesses from each side, the jury visited the house where the incident took place. They were able to see the layout for themselves. There had only been a slight change in the layout between the time of the incident and the visit by the jury.
During the summation, the learned trial judge told the jury, several times, what the respective cases of the prosecution and defence were. She told them that they were the judges of the facts and that they had to decide whether the prosecution had provided evidence to make them feel sure that its case was the one they should believe.
Mr Edwards initially filed four grounds of appeal. They are:
“(1) That the verdict was unreasonable having regards [sic] to the evidence
(2) That the Trial Judge erred in not upholding the ‘no case submission’
(3) That the Trial was unfair in that there was extra ordinary [sic] delay in bringing the matter to Trial leading to the loss of memory, exhibits and witnesses and furthermore the prosecutor invited the jury to speculate inappropriately on the matters not in evidence or capable of being ascertained because of said losses, on account of delay
(4) That the case was tried and put to the Jury by the Trial Judge on speculative platform [sic], which is steeply based on media and public bias”
In addition to those grounds, eight detailed supplemental grounds were filed by counsel on his behalf. Some of those grounds covered areas which are covered by the original grounds. The supplemental grounds are:
“ GROUND 1
...
To continue reading
Request your trial