Alberta’s Court of Appeal has upheld a sexual assault conviction after rejecting a claim that the trial judge showed bias by intervening when the accused repeatedly interrupted the complainant’s testimony.
In R v Falletta, 2026 ABCA 350, Justices Kevin Feehan, Anne Kirker and April Grosse found that the trial judge acted within his authority to maintain order. The panel also upheld his assessment of the complainant’s evidence and dismissed applications to introduce fresh evidence.
Warnings after repeated interruptions
The appeal court recounted ten occasions when Stephano Falletta interrupted the complainant’s evidence. Defence counsel spoke to him about his conduct, but the interruptions continued. At one point Falletta left the prisoner’s dock and approached the prosecutor.
With the complainant outside the courtroom, the trial judge warned Falletta that another disruption would lead to his removal to a separate room where he could follow the proceedings. The judge also invited the prosecutor to explain his position to the complainant because he was concerned the outburst had been intimidating.
Falletta argued that the warnings and that invitation would lead a reasonable observer to doubt the judge’s impartiality. The panel considered how an informed observer would understand the measures in context. It found that the judge’s interventions were fair and necessary to preserve order and that Falletta had failed to overcome the presumption of impartiality.
Trial judge addressed inconsistencies
The trial judge found that the complainant had withdrawn consent during sexual activity and that Falletta knew consent had been withdrawn but continued. On appeal, Falletta argued that his courtroom conduct had influenced the judge’s assessment of inconsistencies in the complainant’s account.
The panel examined how the judge dealt with differences in the complainant’s recollection of timing and with communications after the incident. He acknowledged the discrepancies and explained why he accepted the account. He also found no evidence supporting a defence theory that the complainant had a motive to fabricate. He treated that question as neutral in deciding credibility.
The appeal judges concluded that the trial judge had addressed the defence challenges. They declined to reassess the witness’s credibility or reliability on that record.
Falletta had also filed an affidavit describing the testimony he would have given at trial, then withdrew his allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. The panel observed that his proposed evidence could have been given and tested by cross-examination at trial. It dismissed both his application to admit the affidavit and the Crown’s request to introduce a responding affidavit from trial counsel.
The court’s October 30 decision dismissed the conviction appeal. A publication order protects information that could identify the victim or witness.
Source: R v Falletta, 2026 ABCA 350.
