Jason Rabinovitch Criminal Lawyer

What Does Really Mean?

The case of Marco Muzzo has come to an end. After his plea of guilty, he received a sentence of 10 years in the penitentiary. That sentence was reduced to 9 years, 4 months as the judge gave him an equivalent of 8 months credit for time spent in custody prior to the sentencing.

This decision is a landmark one as it is one of the longer custodial sentences given in Canada for a drinking and driving related offence.

However, the actual time that Mr. Muzzo will likely spend in custody is much less. He will be eligible for parole after 1/3 of the sentence -approximately 37 months. He is a first time offender, so I would expect that he will be a model prisoner during the time of his incarceration and despite the horrific results of his offending behaviour, from a legal standpoint, he did not have any intention to engage in an act of violence, nor was there an intent to injure. These factors will be considered by the parole board, and will likely result in Mr. Muzzo being released from custody at the earliest opportunity.

The public may have some strong opinions about a real time sentence of less than 1 year for each life lost, but unless the parole board has some evidence that further incarceration is necessary, they are not likely to allow Mr. Muzzo to serve his sentence in full.

Where this case may have some far reaching effects is in relation to how Courts sentence drinking and driving offences in the future even where there is no accident or injuries to others.

The trial judge used some very strong language in describing the ongoing problem and harm caused by drinking and driving. She expressed the view that higher penalties are necessary in order to get across the message that alcohol and cars are a dangerous combination. Prosecutors and Courts may see this judgement as having precedential value to ask for and impose more significant penalties, including jail, for the "run of the mill" type of impaired case that is more regularly in the judicial system, even for 1st time offenders.

THE ARE AT YOUR DOOR WITH A … WHAT DO YOU DO?

The police cannot search a residence without either a search warrant properly authorized by a judge or your permission. If the police have gone through the trouble to get a warrant, then they likely believe that you or someone in your house is involved with serious criminal activity, usually involving drugs and/or fi****ms.

It is important to remember that if the police have a proper warrant, you CANNOT deny them entry. To do so could lead to further charges against you.

However, you are never required to consent to the police searching your home or anything else, like a vehicle. If you give the police your consent to search your lawyer will have a more difficult time challenging the legality of the search later on. The police will conduct the search regardless of what you say, so it is better to make a onetime objection stating that you are not consenting to any search. That way, your lawyer will not have any bars to challenging the admissibility of whatever the police may find.

If the police ask for permission and threaten to get a warrant if you don't give it, DO NOT agree. They may be bluffing in the hope that your consent will relieve them of the need to apply for a warrant that they cannot get.

If you are charged, make sure that your actions don't hurt your lawyer's ability to protect your rights. Remain silent, speak to a lawyer.

Save my number in the event you find yourself in this position 416-580-7772. Like my page to continue to receive blogs on other legal topics.

R. v. Marco Muzzo: Effects of Facebook Petition on Muzzo Trial

It is my understanding that the prosecution of Mr. Muzzo’s case has been assigned to the Crown Attorney and Deputy Crown Attorney for York Region. These are both very senior and very competent prosecutors who regularly handle the most serious and high profile cases (i.e. murders) in the region. It is clear that the York Region Crown Attorney’s office sees this case as a high priority.

A petition initiated on Facebook supporting the detention of Marco Muzzo with more than 3,000 signatures was apparently forwarded to the Crown Attorney’s office. This petition may have some significant effects on the Muzzo case including:

1. At the bail hearing, the Crown may try to introduce this petition into evidence to support the argument that the public would lose faith in the administration of justice if Mr. Muzzo is granted a bail. However, the court may not give the petition a lot of weight as it may not be seen as an accurate reflection of the public opinion due to a lack of information as to how the petition was generated, and it may be seen as an inflamed reaction to a single event rather than the general opinion of a fully informed public.

2. The existence of this petition may be used by the defence if a jury is being picked for a trial to indicate that the population in York Region and/or the surrounding regions have a pre-disposed state of mind towards this case and Mr. Muzzo’s guilt. This may make it possible for the defence to bring an application for a change of venue so that the trial would be heard in another jurisdiction.

On October 19, 2015, counsel for Mr. Muzzo adjourned his bail hearing again as they were still awaiting disclosure in relation to this matter. The new date for the bail hearing is November 12, 2015. This is an indication that the Crown Attorney will be strongly seeking Mr. Muzzo’s detention and will be relying heavily on the tertiary ground (that Mr. Muzzo’s release on bail would undermine the public confidence in the administration of justice) as a reason for the detention.