Violent rapist Steeve Santana’s appeal dismissed

BY DELANA ISLES

Prosecuting Counsel’s closing speech in a rape trial did not undermine its fairness, appellate court finds in Steeve Santana’s appeal of rape conviction and sentence.

Santana appeared before Hon Justice K. Neville Adderley acting President of the court of appeal, Justice Stanley John and Justice Sir Ian Winder in January to appeal an eight-year sentence and conviction for the violent rape of a woman in 2021.

On July 23, 2021, he was found guilty of rape after a jury trial and was sentenced by Justice LobbanJackson on October 18 the same year.

Santana appealed to the court for his conviction to be quashed on three grounds.

Firstly, Santana’s attorney, Lara Maroof-Misick contended that in the closing speech for the Crown, prosecuting counsel made comments in relation to the medical evidence which were factually misleading and overly emotive thus undermining the fairness of the trial.

On the second ground, MaroofMisick claimed that the trial judge failed to assist the jury with the relevance of the medical evidence in the case, in particular the vaginal injuries during her summing up. Further, that the judge failed to address the misleading statement made by the Prosecution Counsel in her closing speech.

The third ground of appeal was that prosecuting counsel made inappropriate, overly emotive, and misleading comments in relation to the appellant’s case in her closing speech which undermined the fairness of the trial.

In responding to the appellant’s claim, the Director of Public Prosecution, Eugene Otuonye KC stated that the comments by prosecuting counsel did not serve to distract the attention of the jury from the crucial issue it had to decide, namely: whether or not there was consent.

DISMISSED

In dismissing the appellant’s appeal, the Justices noted that the crucial issue was whether the remarks of prosecuting counsel were so emotive and exciting to result in the appellant not having a fair trial.

They explained that in examining comments made by prosecuting counsel, similar documented cases have established that the comments must be of such a nature that they overstepped the permissible bounds, causing unfairness in the trial process.

On the other hand, even where comments are overly emotive where the evidence against an appellant is very strong, the court may nevertheless dismiss an appeal.

“In the instant case and upon examination of the comments complained of, the Court was of the view that prosecuting counsel’s closing speech did not undermine the fairness of the trial nor were the comments emotive or exciting,” the judgement reads.

The Crime

The appellant and the female complainant knew each other, as her brother was married to his cousin. The woman lived in the home with her brother and his wife, where Santana was a regular visitor, and had meals there on occasion.

On the day of the incident, March 4, 2021, the appellant visited the shared home between