Timothy Pierre v The State
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | A. Yorke-Soo Hon JA |
| Judgment Date | 13 September 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2023 CA 62 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Appeal No. P027/2016 |
A. Yorke-Soo Hon, J.A
G. Smith, J.A.
V. Kokaram, J.A.
Criminal Appeal No. P027/2016
CR No. 80/2008
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
Mr. Keith C. Scotland and Ms. Asha A. Watkins-Montserin appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr. N. Pilgrim appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
On June 27, 2005, the Appellant was charged with the murder of the deceased, Stacy Gibbs (Stacy). On June 23, 2016, he was found guilty and sentenced to death. He now appeals his conviction.
The Appellant was the stepfather of 14 year old Stacy. He shared a relationship with her mother, Coreen Gibbs (Coreen). Coreen had three children and they all lived with the Appellant and Coreen, just off the Churchill Roosevelt Highway on the compound of Caribbean Welders in Arima. The Appellant was the sole breadwinner.
On the night of June 17, 2005, Stacy and her siblings were at home alone with the Appellant. Coreen had left to visit her mother in Valencia. The Appellant left the children at home and went to the grocery. After he left, Sterling, a friend who was also a neighbour told the children that their mother was calling them. The gate was locked at the time and they jumped over the gate and went on the road. Sterling then told them that he was lying. Stacy and the other children remained out on the road playing.
When the Appellant returned from the grocery, he was angry. He “tapped” the children on their heads and all of them went back inside. Stacy was not happy about this. Her siblings all went to bed.
At some point that night the Stacy's brother, Ryan Gibbs (Ryan) was awakened by the sound of a loud scream. He got out of his double-decker bed and observed the Appellant and Stacy from three vantage points, namely an opening below the roof, behind a green fridge located near to the exit to the gallery and through a window. He saw the Appellant with his hands around Stacy's neck. Stacy was begging for her life. She was telling him to stop, that she could not breathe. She was telling him “ sorry”, she was telling him, “ Sorry, please,” and that she would never do it again, but the Appellant did not say anything. He started to choke and beat her. Stacy then fell to the floor and stopped moving. The Appellant picked her up and put her back on the table, still holding her neck. Stacy started to “beat up” about four times and the Appellant was still holding on to her neck until she stopped moving. The Appellant wrapped her up in plastic, packed up her clothes and carried her outside the gate.
Coreen arrived home the next day around 4:00am. The Appellant was not at home. Coreen enquired from Ryan and the children about Stacy and they told her that she ran away. The Appellant arrived sometime later that morning. He told her that the night before he left Stacy at home and went to purchase a hotdog for her. Upon his arrival he realised that she had taken all her clothes and left the house. Coreen and the Appellant began searching the surrounding areas for Stacy. They continued their search for a few days more until the Appellant told Coreen that Stacy was in the Valencia area at a relative's home and they went in search of her. On June 23, 2005, after no success, they eventually went to the Pinto Road Police station where Coreen reported that Stacy was missing. Insp Bernard Etienne spoke with Coreen and detained the Appellant. He later spoke with Ryan and then told the Appellant that he was investigating the disappearance of Stacy and that he had information that he was a suspect and cautioned him. The Appellant replied “Boss, I ent know nutten about that.” The Appellant was subsequently arrested.
On June 24, 2005, Insp. John Daniel cautioned the Appellant and conducted an interview with him at the Malabar Police Post. The Appellant told him that he will tell them what he knew. At the end of the interview, the Appellant said, “ I will take you to where she is,” and he said, “ leh we go.” The interview was read over to the Appellant, who confirmed that it was true and correct.
The Appellant took the police to an area near the Churchill Roosevelt Highway, across from his home and pointed to a spot which Insp Daniel observed was covered with galvanise and dry grass, and said, “ is here I throw she body.” Insp Daniel then cautioned the Appellant again. He then pointed to a cesspit with about 3 feet of water in it. The Appellant pointed to a hole in that cesspit and said, “ is here I push the body through. I tired talk to she about running away and I hit she with a piece of wood on she neck and throw the wood in a heap.” The Appellant was again cautioned.
The police conducted a search of the cesspit and Stacy's body was recovered.
A written statement under caution was later recorded from the Appellant in the presence of a Justice of the Peace, Insp Daniel and PC Eric Park. On June 27, 2005, the Appellant was charged for the offence.
Stacy's body was examined by Dr. Eslyn Mc Donald Burris, Forensic Pathologist, but she was unable to determine the cause of death or the manner of death as the body was in a state of decomposition. She could not rule out beating with a piece of wood or strangulation as the cause of death.
Dr. Hazel Othello, a Psychiatrist, did a psychiatric evaluation of the Appellant and found that though he might have been of low intelligence and slightly subnormal, his mental state was such that he can be held responsible for his actions and that he was fit to plead.
The Appellant did not testify nor did he call any witnesses. His defence, as put under cross-examination, was that of provocation. He also put in cross-examination that his confessions were unfairly obtained and he made allegations of impropriety against the police officers including Insp Daniel and also attacked Coreen's character.
Ground 1:
The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he allowed into evidence before the jury material that was irrelevant and which was highly prejudicial and whose prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. Having wrongfully allowed this evidence before the jury the learned trial judge failed adequately to direct the jury on this matter. The impugned evidence was that of Bad Character. (sic)
Counsel for the Appellant, Mr Scotland, submitted that the judge wrongly admitted bad character evidence against the Appellant on the credibility limb. He contended that this evidence was irrelevant. It was more prejudicial than probative because it was for a lesser offence which did not involve the use of a weapon or violence. Also, the age of the previous conviction weighed against its admission and tipped the balance against allowing it. He added that the court ought to have properly considered the learning in respect of convictions of such antiquity and submitted that the court misapplied the principles in the decision of The State v Wendell Jeremy 1.
He argued that the judge ought to have considered the Appellant's age at the time of the offences and not at the time of the bad character application.
He further submitted that having admitted the prejudicial evidence, the judge's error was compounded by the fact that the judge's direction on how to deal with the evidence was confusing.
Counsel for the Respondent, Mr. Pilgrim submitted that it was within the judge's discretion to give the bad character direction in light of the severe attacks made by the Appellant against the prosecution's witnesses. He contended that the jury was entitled to know the character of the person making the attack and relied on the case of R v Yaryare 2 in support.
Counsel submitted that the bad character evidence was admitted under section 15 N (1)(g) of the Evidence Act, Chap 7:02 as amended in respect of credibility and not for propensity, therefore any conviction for a criminal offence would have assisted in demonstrating the character of the person making the attack. He added that the previous convictions were not trifling.
Counsel contended that the Appellant's submission that the judge ought to have had regard to the Appellant's age at the time of the offences is not supported by statute as the Appellant was not a child at the time of the commission of the offences.
He further contended that the judge was alert to the fact that the previous convictions occurred some 12 years prior and considered that given the severity of the attack on the characters of the prosecution witnesses, their admission was warranted and that appropriate directions avoided prejudice. He submitted that this was an appropriate course and relied on several cases in which such approach was taken including Samuel Ramesar v The State 3 and R v Hearne 4.
He also submitted that the judge carefully warned the jury against placing undue reliance on the previous convictions and that they had to consider it together with all the other evidence in the case.
He further submitted that once the witnesses' character was attacked then the judge was entitled to admit the bad character evidence in order to properly balance the scales between the witness and the Appellant. See R v Clarke (Trevor) 5 and R v Owen 6.
At trial, the Appellant through his attorney, attacked the character of the prosecution's witnesses Coreen and Insp John Daniel in cross-examination. Coreen was asked questions in cross-examination to establish that she was an alcoholic 7 who physically abused both her children and the Appellant while intoxicated 8; that she had once cut the Appellant with a bottle 9 and had threatened to poison his food and kill him 10.
It was put to Insp...
To continue reading
Request your trial