Difference between revisions of "Prior Consistent Statements"

From Criminal Law Notebook
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 2: Line 2:
 
==General Principles==
 
==General Principles==
 
Prior consistent statements are presumptively inadmissible.<ref>
 
Prior consistent statements are presumptively inadmissible.<ref>
''R v Beland'', [1987] 2 SCR 398, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftm1 1987 CanLII 27] (SCC){{perSCC|McIntyre J}}{{ats|10-12}}<br>
+
''R v Beland'', [1987] 2 SCR 398, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftm1 1987 CanLII 27] (SCC){{perSCC|McIntyre J}}{{atsL|10 to 12|http://canlii.ca/t/1ftm1#par10}}<br>
 
''R v Stirling'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1w206 2008 SCC 10] (CanLII), [2008] S.C.J. No. 10 (SCC){{perSCC|Bastarache J}}<br>
 
''R v Stirling'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1w206 2008 SCC 10] (CanLII), [2008] S.C.J. No. 10 (SCC){{perSCC|Bastarache J}}<br>
 
''R v Ellard'', [http://canlii.ca/t/23w6b 2009 SCC 27] (CanLII){{perSCC|Abella J}}<Br>
 
''R v Ellard'', [http://canlii.ca/t/23w6b 2009 SCC 27] (CanLII){{perSCC|Abella J}}<Br>
''R v Evans'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fs19 1993 CanLII 102] (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 629{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{at|34}}
+
''R v Evans'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fs19 1993 CanLII 102] (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 629{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{atL|34|http://canlii.ca/t/1fs19}}
 
</ref>  
 
</ref>  
  
 
; Purpose of Rule
 
; Purpose of Rule
 
The prior statement is undesirable for several reasons. They are a form of hearsay and so like all hearsay are considered unreliable.<ref>
 
The prior statement is undesirable for several reasons. They are a form of hearsay and so like all hearsay are considered unreliable.<ref>
''R v Dinardo'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1wtt2 2008 SCC 24] (CanLII), [2008] 1 SCR 788{{perSCC|Charron J}}{{at|36}}
+
''R v Dinardo'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1wtt2 2008 SCC 24] (CanLII), [2008] 1 SCR 788{{perSCC|Charron J}}{{atL|36|http://canlii.ca/t/1wtt2}}
 
</ref>  
 
</ref>  
They are also irrelevant and lacks probative value.<ref>''R v Pattison'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fp0f5 2011 BCSC 1594] (CanLII), [2011] BCJ No. 2231{{perBCSC|Holmes J}}{{at|12}}<br>
+
They are also irrelevant and lacks probative value.<ref>
{{supra1|Stirling}}{{at|5}}<br>  
+
''R v Pattison'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fp0f5 2011 BCSC 1594] (CanLII), [2011] BCJ No. 2231{{perBCSC|Holmes J}}{{atL|12|http://canlii.ca/t/fp0f5}}<br>
{{supra1|Dinardo}}{{at|36}}<Br>
+
{{supra1|Stirling}}{{atL|5|http://canlii.ca/t/1w206}}<br>  
 +
{{supra1|Dinardo}}{{atL|36|http://canlii.ca/t/1wtt2}}<Br>
 
</ref>  
 
</ref>  
 
It is a form of "oath-helping" (or self-corroboration) inappropriately enhancing the evidence. It is self-serving and self-corroborative without actually adding any value to the evidence. The consistent evidence encourages the inference that a story told consistently over time is more likely to be true even though “consistency is a quality just as agreeable to lies as to the truth”.<ref>  
 
It is a form of "oath-helping" (or self-corroboration) inappropriately enhancing the evidence. It is self-serving and self-corroborative without actually adding any value to the evidence. The consistent evidence encourages the inference that a story told consistently over time is more likely to be true even though “consistency is a quality just as agreeable to lies as to the truth”.<ref>  
 
''R v L(DO)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1nzqx 1991 CanLII 2714] (MB CA), (1991), 6 C.R. (4th) 277 at 309 (Man. C.A.){{perMBCA|O'Sullivan JA}}, rev’d [http://canlii.ca/t/1frxn 1993 CanLII 46] (SCC), (1993), 25 C.R. (4th) 285 (SCC){{perSCC|L'Heureux‑Dubé J}}<br>
 
''R v L(DO)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1nzqx 1991 CanLII 2714] (MB CA), (1991), 6 C.R. (4th) 277 at 309 (Man. C.A.){{perMBCA|O'Sullivan JA}}, rev’d [http://canlii.ca/t/1frxn 1993 CanLII 46] (SCC), (1993), 25 C.R. (4th) 285 (SCC){{perSCC|L'Heureux‑Dubé J}}<br>
 
''R v Toten'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1p79f 1993 CanLII 3427] (ON CA), (1993), 83 CCC (3d) 5 (Ont. C.A.){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} at 36 (PCS should be rejected  “not ... on any principle unique to prior consistent statements, but on the very practical assessment that, generally speaking, such evidence will not provide sufficient assistance to the trier of fact to warrant its admission.")<br>
 
''R v Toten'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1p79f 1993 CanLII 3427] (ON CA), (1993), 83 CCC (3d) 5 (Ont. C.A.){{perONCA|Doherty JA}} at 36 (PCS should be rejected  “not ... on any principle unique to prior consistent statements, but on the very practical assessment that, generally speaking, such evidence will not provide sufficient assistance to the trier of fact to warrant its admission.")<br>
''R v Divitaris'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1h27t 2004 CanLII 9212] (ON CA), [2004] OJ No 1945 (ONCA){{perONCA|Feldman JA}}{{at|28}}<br>
+
''R v Divitaris'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1h27t 2004 CanLII 9212] (ON CA), [2004] OJ No 1945 (ONCA){{perONCA|Feldman JA}}{{atL|28|http://canlii.ca/t/1h27t}}<br>
 
David M. Paciocco and Lee Steusser, The Law of Evidence, 2nd ed. (Toronto, Ont: Irwin Law, 1999) at 305  (“In most cases, the evidence is ... of no value.  It is redundant and potentially prejudicial to allow the testimony to be repeated.  It may gain false credence in the eyes of the trier of fact through the consistency with which it is asserted.")<br>
 
David M. Paciocco and Lee Steusser, The Law of Evidence, 2nd ed. (Toronto, Ont: Irwin Law, 1999) at 305  (“In most cases, the evidence is ... of no value.  It is redundant and potentially prejudicial to allow the testimony to be repeated.  It may gain false credence in the eyes of the trier of fact through the consistency with which it is asserted.")<br>
''R v Y(MA)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/h3j5h 2017 CanLII 25291] (ON SC){{perONSC|Bondy J}}{{at|27}} ("The rule against prior consistent statements is merely a manifestation of the general rule that evidence must be relevant to a material issue. ")<br>
+
''R v Y(MA)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/h3j5h 2017 CanLII 25291] (ON SC){{perONSC|Bondy J}}{{atL|27|http://canlii.ca/t/h3j5h}} ("The rule against prior consistent statements is merely a manifestation of the general rule that evidence must be relevant to a material issue.")<br>
''R v Nault'', [2019] AJ No 112 (ABCA){{fix}}{{at|19}} ("Prior consistent statements are viewed with caution because there is a danger in associating repetition with reliability. The fact that a witness has said something more than once does not make it more likely to be honest or accurate...") and ("He may not reason, without more, that because the witness has made the statement on a previous occasion, she is more likely to be telling the truth. He may not reason, without more, that a witness' out-of-court statement corroborates her own testimony.")</ref>
+
''R v Nault'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hx99t 2019 ABCA 37] (CanLII), [2019] AJ No 112 (ABCA){{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|19|http://canlii.ca/t/hx99t}} ("Prior consistent statements are viewed with caution because there is a danger in associating repetition with reliability. The fact that a witness has said something more than once does not make it more likely to be honest or accurate...") and ("He may not reason, without more, that because the witness has made the statement on a previous occasion, she is more likely to be telling the truth. He may not reason, without more, that a witness' out-of-court statement corroborates her own testimony.")</ref>
  
 
A statement can be seen as having two components. There is the "hearsay component" and there is the "declaration component".<ref>
 
A statement can be seen as having two components. There is the "hearsay component" and there is the "declaration component".<ref>
''R v Khan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gxhb8 2017 ONCA 114] (CanLII){{perONCA|Hourigan JA}}{{at|13}}<br>
+
''R v Khan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gxhb8 2017 ONCA 114] (CanLII){{perONCA|Hourigan JA}}{{atL|13|http://canlii.ca/t/gxhb8}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
 
The rule "comes into play when the statement is being adduce for its declaration component" (i.e. the fact that the statement was made, not for the truth of the statement). This fact must be shown to be relevant to the case to overcome the prohibition.<ref>
 
The rule "comes into play when the statement is being adduce for its declaration component" (i.e. the fact that the statement was made, not for the truth of the statement). This fact must be shown to be relevant to the case to overcome the prohibition.<ref>
{{ibid1|Y(MA)}}{{at|27}}<br>
+
{{ibid1|Y(MA)}}{{atL|27|http://canlii.ca/t/h3j5h}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
 
; Implications
 
; Implications
 
The rule against consistent statement prevents evidence from both the declarant and the recipient.<ref>
 
The rule against consistent statement prevents evidence from both the declarant and the recipient.<ref>
''R v RRDG'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g56f0 2014 NSSC 78] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Rosinski J}}{{at|105}} citing Watt Manual of Evidence  
+
''R v RRDG'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g56f0 2014 NSSC 78] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Rosinski J}}{{atL|105|http://canlii.ca/t/g56f0}} citing Watt Manual of Evidence  
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
 
It is not open to a witness give evidence my simply adopting a prior statement. The judge is entitled to hear all evidence directly from the witness.<ref>
 
It is not open to a witness give evidence my simply adopting a prior statement. The judge is entitled to hear all evidence directly from the witness.<ref>
''R v Grey'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fxf9n 2013 BCCA 232] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Frankel JA}} {{at|43}}
+
''R v Grey'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fxf9n 2013 BCCA 232] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Frankel JA}} {{atL|43|http://canlii.ca/t/fxf9n}}
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
 
; Standard of Review
 
; Standard of Review
 
A jury instruction on the use of a complainant's prior consistent statement is reviewed on a question of law.<ref>
 
A jury instruction on the use of a complainant's prior consistent statement is reviewed on a question of law.<ref>
''R v Sarrazin'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2chrm 2010 ONCA 577] (CanLII){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}{{at|65}}<Br>
+
''R v Sarrazin'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2chrm 2010 ONCA 577] (CanLII){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}{{atL|65|http://canlii.ca/t/2chrm}}<Br>
''R v Warren'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gn7l6 2016 ONCA 104] (CanLII){{perONCA|Roberts JA}}{{at|9}}<Br></ref>
+
''R v Warren'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gn7l6 2016 ONCA 104] (CanLII){{perONCA|Roberts JA}}{{atL|9|http://canlii.ca/t/gn7l6}}<Br></ref>
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
{{reflist|2}}
  
 
==Exceptions==
 
==Exceptions==
 
Exceptions to the prohibition against admitting prior consistent statements include:<ref>
 
Exceptions to the prohibition against admitting prior consistent statements include:<ref>
''R v RRDG'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g56f0 2014 NSSC 78] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Rosinski J}}{{at|105}} citing Watt Manual of Evidence  
+
''R v RRDG'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g56f0 2014 NSSC 78] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Rosinski J}}{{atL|105|http://canlii.ca/t/g56f0}} citing Watt Manual of Evidence  
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
*Rebutting allegation of recent fabrication<ref>''R v Stirling'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1w206 2008 SCC 10] (CanLII){{perSCC|Bastarache J}}{{at|7}}<br></ref>
+
*Rebutting allegation of recent fabrication<ref>
*Prior eyewitness identification
+
''R v Stirling'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1w206 2008 SCC 10] (CanLII){{perSCC|Bastarache J}}{{atL|7|http://canlii.ca/t/1w206}}<br></ref>
*Recent complaint
+
* Prior eyewitness identification
*Show physical or mental state of accused ([[Traditional Exceptions to Hearsay#Spontaneous_utterances_.2F_res_gestae|res gestae]])<ref>
+
* Recent complaint
''R v MC'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g8rmn 2014 ONCA 611] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{at|3}}("Where prior consistent statements are admitted as circumstantial evidence, the statement is not received as evidence of the truth of its contents, rather only to establish that the statement was made.  That the statement was made may afford circumstantial evidence of some fact of importance in the proceeding, as for example the declarant’s state of mind.")<br>
+
* Show physical or mental state of accused ([[Traditional Exceptions to Hearsay#Spontaneous_utterances_.2F_res_gestae|res gestae]])<ref>
''R v Edgar'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2br4d 2010 ONCA 529] (CanLII){{perONCA|Sharpe JA}}{{at|35}}<br>
+
''R v MC'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g8rmn 2014 ONCA 611] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{atL|3|http://canlii.ca/t/g8rmn}}("Where prior consistent statements are admitted as circumstantial evidence, the statement is not received as evidence of the truth of its contents, rather only to establish that the statement was made.  That the statement was made may afford circumstantial evidence of some fact of importance in the proceeding, as for example the declarant’s state of mind.")<br>
 +
''R v Edgar'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2br4d 2010 ONCA 529] (CanLII){{perONCA|Sharpe JA}}{{atL|35|http://canlii.ca/t/2br4d}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
 
*Narrative
 
*Narrative
Line 65: Line 67:
  
 
Where a prior consistent statement is admissible it can only be used to rehabilitate the witness, which also means it can only go to credibility.<ref>
 
Where a prior consistent statement is admissible it can only be used to rehabilitate the witness, which also means it can only go to credibility.<ref>
''R v Almasi'', [http://canlii.ca/t/grn12 2016 ONSC 2943] (CanLII){{perONSC|Goldstein J}}{{at|40}} ("The statement is only admissible for the purpose of rehabilitating the witness.  In other words, the prior consistent statement can only go credibility")<br>
+
''R v Almasi'', [http://canlii.ca/t/grn12 2016 ONSC 2943] (CanLII){{perONSC|Goldstein J}}{{atL|40|http://canlii.ca/t/grn12}} ("The statement is only admissible for the purpose of rehabilitating the witness.  In other words, the prior consistent statement can only go credibility")<br>
 
see also ''R v O'Connor'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6jjt 1995 CanLII 255] (ON CA){{perONCA|Finlayson JA}}
 
see also ''R v O'Connor'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6jjt 1995 CanLII 255] (ON CA){{perONCA|Finlayson JA}}
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
Line 73: Line 75:
  
 
When the prior consistent statement is received, it will not normally be for the truth of its contents but rather as circumstantial evidence of importance to the proceedings.<ref>
 
When the prior consistent statement is received, it will not normally be for the truth of its contents but rather as circumstantial evidence of importance to the proceedings.<ref>
{{supra1|MC}}{{at|3}}<br>
+
{{supra1|MC}}{{atL|3|http://canlii.ca/t/g8rmn}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
Line 81: Line 83:
 
Prior recordings of extemporaneous observations of a witness being tendered for the purpose of establishing recognition of the accused, is a permissible form of prior consistent statements.<ref>
 
Prior recordings of extemporaneous observations of a witness being tendered for the purpose of establishing recognition of the accused, is a permissible form of prior consistent statements.<ref>
 
''R v Langille'', (1990) 59 CCC (3d) 544, [http://canlii.ca/t/g1bqq 1990 CanLII 6782] (ON CA){{perONCA|Osborne JA}}, at 556 (Ont.C.A.)<br>
 
''R v Langille'', (1990) 59 CCC (3d) 544, [http://canlii.ca/t/g1bqq 1990 CanLII 6782] (ON CA){{perONCA|Osborne JA}}, at 556 (Ont.C.A.)<br>
''R v Tat'', [1997] OJ No 3579 (C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/6hgr 1997 CanLII 2234] (ON CA){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}{{at|35}}<br>
+
''R v Tat'', [1997] OJ No 3579 (C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/6hgr 1997 CanLII 2234] (ON CA){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}{{atL|35|http://canlii.ca/t/6hgr}}<br>
''R v Downey'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hrjs4 2018 NSCA 33] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Saunders JA}}{{at|84}}<Br>
+
''R v Downey'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hrjs4 2018 NSCA 33] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Saunders JA}}{{atL|84|http://canlii.ca/t/hrjs4}}<Br>
 
E.G. Ewaschuk, Criminal Pleadings & Practice in Canada, loose-leaf (consulted on 12 March 2018),
 
E.G. Ewaschuk, Criminal Pleadings & Practice in Canada, loose-leaf (consulted on 12 March 2018),
 
(Toronto, Ont.: Thomson Reuters, 2017) Ch. 16, pp. 16-196-197 ("A prior statement identifying or “describing the accused” is admissible as original
 
(Toronto, Ont.: Thomson Reuters, 2017) Ch. 16, pp. 16-196-197 ("A prior statement identifying or “describing the accused” is admissible as original
evidence where the identifying witness identifies the accused at trial as the person
+
evidence where the identifying witness identifies the accused at trial as the person in question.")
in question. ")
 
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
 
This type of evidence may be used to give credence to in-court identification.<ref>
 
This type of evidence may be used to give credence to in-court identification.<ref>
{{supra1|Downey}}{{at|85}}<Br>
+
{{supra1|Downey}}{{atL|85|http://canlii.ca/t/hrjs4}}<Br>
 
David M. Paciocco & Lee Stuesser, The Law of Evidence, 7th ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2015){{atp|146}}<br>
 
David M. Paciocco & Lee Stuesser, The Law of Evidence, 7th ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2015){{atp|146}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
 
Statements of prior identification are not considered hearsay.<ref>
 
Statements of prior identification are not considered hearsay.<ref>
{{supra1|Downey}}{{at|86}}<br>
+
{{supra1|Downey}}{{atL|86|http://canlii.ca/t/hrjs4}}<br>
{{supra1|Tat}}{{at|35}}<br>
+
{{supra1|Tat}}{{atL|35|http://canlii.ca/t/6hgr}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
Line 103: Line 104:
 
==Recent Fabrication==
 
==Recent Fabrication==
  
The allegation of recent fabrication does not need to be explicit. There only needs be to an "apparent position" alleging a "prior contrivance".<ref>''R v KT'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fx5wz 2013 ONCA 257] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{at|37}}<br>
+
The allegation of recent fabrication does not need to be explicit. There only needs be to an "apparent position" alleging a "prior contrivance".<ref>''R v KT'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fx5wz 2013 ONCA 257] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{atL|37|http://canlii.ca/t/fx5wz}}<br>
''R v Stirling'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1w206 2008 SCC 10] (CanLII){{perSCC|Bastarache J}}{{at|5}}<br>
+
''R v Stirling'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1w206 2008 SCC 10] (CanLII){{perSCC|Bastarache J}}{{atL|5|http://canlii.ca/t/1w206}}<br>
''R v Ellard'', [http://canlii.ca/t/23w6b 2009 SCC 27] (CanLII){{perSCC|Abella J}}{{at|32}}<br>
+
''R v Ellard'', [http://canlii.ca/t/23w6b 2009 SCC 27] (CanLII){{perSCC|Abella J}}{{atL|32|http://canlii.ca/t/23w6b}}<br>
 
</ref> However, mere contradiction of the witness is not sufficient.<ref>
 
</ref> However, mere contradiction of the witness is not sufficient.<ref>
{{supra1|KT}}{{at|37}}<br>
+
{{supra1|KT}}{{atL|37|http://canlii.ca/t/fx5wz}}<br>
{{supra1|Ellard}}{{at|33}}<br>
+
{{supra1|Ellard}}{{atL|33|http://canlii.ca/t/23w6b}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
 
If a cross-examination suggests, either directly or indirectly, that a witness fabricated evidence and has reason or motive to do so, the party who called the witness may re-examine and lead evidence on a prior statement being consistent with the evidence in court.<ref>
 
If a cross-examination suggests, either directly or indirectly, that a witness fabricated evidence and has reason or motive to do so, the party who called the witness may re-examine and lead evidence on a prior statement being consistent with the evidence in court.<ref>
''R v Kailayapillai'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fx43k 2013 ONCA 248] (CanLII){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}{{at|40}}<br>
+
''R v Kailayapillai'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fx43k 2013 ONCA 248] (CanLII){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}{{atL|40|http://canlii.ca/t/fx43k}}<br>
 
see ''R v Wannebo'' (1972), 7 CCC (2d) 266 (BCCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/gdhpg 1972 CanLII 1440] (BC CA){{perBCCA|McFarlane JA}}<br>
 
see ''R v Wannebo'' (1972), 7 CCC (2d) 266 (BCCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/gdhpg 1972 CanLII 1440] (BC CA){{perBCCA|McFarlane JA}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
Line 118: Line 119:
 
Recent fabrication exception requires the circumstances to show that the "apparent position of the opposing party is that there has been a prior contrivance"<ref>
 
Recent fabrication exception requires the circumstances to show that the "apparent position of the opposing party is that there has been a prior contrivance"<ref>
 
''R v Evans'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fs19 1993 CanLII 102] (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 629{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{atp|643}}<br>
 
''R v Evans'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fs19 1993 CanLII 102] (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 629{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{atp|643}}<br>
''R v Stirling'', [2008] 1 SCR 272, [http://canlii.ca/t/1w206 2008 SCC 10] (CanLII){{perSCC|Bastarache J}}{{at|5}}<br>
+
''R v Stirling'', [2008] 1 SCR 272, [http://canlii.ca/t/1w206 2008 SCC 10] (CanLII){{perSCC|Bastarache J}}{{atL|5|http://canlii.ca/t/1w206}}<br>
 
</ref> Also, the prior statement was made "before a motivation to fabricate arose".<ref>
 
</ref> Also, the prior statement was made "before a motivation to fabricate arose".<ref>
{{ibid1|Stirling}}{{at|5}}<br>
+
{{ibid1|Stirling}}{{atL|5|http://canlii.ca/t/1w206}}<br>
{{supra1|Ellard}}{{Ats|32‑33}}
+
{{supra1|Ellard}}{{AtsL|32 to 33|http://canlii.ca/t/23w6b#par32}}
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
Line 130: Line 131:
 
The "recency" element only requires that the witness made up a false story after the event in consideration.<ref>
 
The "recency" element only requires that the witness made up a false story after the event in consideration.<ref>
 
''R v O'Connor'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6jjt 1995 CanLII 255] (ON CA), (1995), 100 CCC (3d) 285 (Ont. C.A.){{perONCA|Finalyson JA}}{{Atos|294‑95}}<br>
 
''R v O'Connor'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6jjt 1995 CanLII 255] (ON CA), (1995), 100 CCC (3d) 285 (Ont. C.A.){{perONCA|Finalyson JA}}{{Atos|294‑95}}<br>
''R v JAT'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fqmzd 2012 ONCA 177] (CanLII), [2012] OJ No 1208{{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{at|98}}<br>
+
''R v JAT'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fqmzd 2012 ONCA 177] (CanLII), [2012] OJ No 1208{{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{atL|98|http://canlii.ca/t/fqmzd}}<br>
{{supra1|Ellard}}{{at|33}}<br>
+
{{supra1|Ellard}}{{atL|33|http://canlii.ca/t/23w6b}}<br>
 
</ref> It not not actually need to be "recent" to the testimony.<ref>
 
</ref> It not not actually need to be "recent" to the testimony.<ref>
''R v Stirling'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1w206 2008 SCC 10] (CanLII){{perSCC|Bastarache J}}{{at|5}}<br>
+
''R v Stirling'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1w206 2008 SCC 10] (CanLII){{perSCC|Bastarache J}}{{atL|5|http://canlii.ca/t/1w206}}<br>
''R v KT'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fx5wz 2013 ONCA 257] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{at|36}}<Br>
+
''R v KT'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fx5wz 2013 ONCA 257] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{atL|36|http://canlii.ca/t/fx5wz}}<Br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
 
A "fabrication" can refer to evidence that the witness was influenced by outside sources.<ref>
 
A "fabrication" can refer to evidence that the witness was influenced by outside sources.<ref>
{{supra1|JAT}}{{at|98}} citing {{supra1|Ellard}}{{at|33}}<br>
+
{{supra1|JAT}}{{atL|98|http://canlii.ca/t/fqmzd}} citing {{supra1|Ellard}}{{atL|33|http://canlii.ca/t/23w6b}}<br>
''R v B(AJ)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1frkl 1995 CanLII 94] (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 413{{perSCC|Sopinka J}}{{at|1}}<br>
+
''R v B(AJ)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1frkl 1995 CanLII 94] (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 413{{perSCC|Sopinka J}}{{atL|1|http://canlii.ca/t/1frkl}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
 
The prior statement is not adduced for the truth of their contents.<ref>
 
The prior statement is not adduced for the truth of their contents.<ref>
{{supra1|JAT}} {{at|98}}
+
{{supra1|JAT}} {{atL|98|http://canlii.ca/t/fqmzd}}
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
 
This rule can apply to rebut allegations of concoction to an accused who is incarcerated with a co-accused.<ref>
 
This rule can apply to rebut allegations of concoction to an accused who is incarcerated with a co-accused.<ref>
see ''R v Divitaris'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1h27t 2004 CanLII 9212] (ON CA), (2004), 188 CCC (3d) 390 (Ont. C.A.){{perONCA|Feldman JA}}{{at|37}}
+
see ''R v Divitaris'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1h27t 2004 CanLII 9212] (ON CA), (2004), 188 CCC (3d) 390 (Ont. C.A.){{perONCA|Feldman JA}}{{atL|37|http://canlii.ca/t/1h27t}}
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
 
Where a prior consistent statement is allowed in evidence on a jury trial, the jury must be given a limiting instruction on the use of the prior statement.
 
Where a prior consistent statement is allowed in evidence on a jury trial, the jury must be given a limiting instruction on the use of the prior statement.
 
<ref>
 
<ref>
{{ibid1|Divitaris}}{{at|31}}</ref>
+
{{ibid1|Divitaris}}{{atL|31|http://canlii.ca/t/1h27t}}</ref>
  
 
; Rebutting Credibility Attack
 
; Rebutting Credibility Attack
 
A judge may refer to a prior consistent statement for the purpose of evaluating a defence allegation against credibility on account of a prior inconsistent statement on the same point of fact.<ref>
 
A judge may refer to a prior consistent statement for the purpose of evaluating a defence allegation against credibility on account of a prior inconsistent statement on the same point of fact.<ref>
''R v Noftall'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hsgwk 2018 ONCA 538] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}}{{at|18}}<br>
+
''R v Noftall'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hsgwk 2018 ONCA 538] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|18|http://canlii.ca/t/hsgwk}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
 
  
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
{{reflist|2}}
Line 165: Line 165:
 
A prior consistent statement can be admissible, for its declaratory value, as circumstantial evidence showing the state of mind of a witness as long as it relates to a trial issue.<ref>
 
A prior consistent statement can be admissible, for its declaratory value, as circumstantial evidence showing the state of mind of a witness as long as it relates to a trial issue.<ref>
 
''R v Edgar'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2br4d 2010 ONCA 529] (CanLII){{perONCA|Sharpe JA}}<Br>  
 
''R v Edgar'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2br4d 2010 ONCA 529] (CanLII){{perONCA|Sharpe JA}}<Br>  
''R v Zou'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gx8tc 2017 ONCA 90] (CanLII){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}{{at|48}}<br>
+
''R v Zou'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gx8tc 2017 ONCA 90] (CanLII){{perONCA|Doherty JA}}{{atL|48|http://canlii.ca/t/gx8tc}}<br>
{{supra1|Y(MA)}}{{at|30}}<br>
+
{{supra1|Y(MA)}}{{atL|30|http://canlii.ca/t/h3j5h}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
Line 174: Line 174:
  
 
A spontaneous and exculpatory statement of the accused shortly after arrest may be admitted to "show the accused's reaction when first confronted with the allegation, provided the accused testifies".<ref>
 
A spontaneous and exculpatory statement of the accused shortly after arrest may be admitted to "show the accused's reaction when first confronted with the allegation, provided the accused testifies".<ref>
''R v KT'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fx5wz 2013 ONCA 257] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{at|34}}<br>
+
''R v KT'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fx5wz 2013 ONCA 257] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{atL|34|http://canlii.ca/t/fx5wz}}<br>
''R v Edgar'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2br4d 2010 ONCA 529] (CanLII){{perONCA|Sharpe JA}}{{at|24}}<br>
+
''R v Edgar'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2br4d 2010 ONCA 529] (CanLII){{perONCA|Sharpe JA}}{{atL|24|http://canlii.ca/t/2br4d}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
Line 182: Line 182:
 
== Narrative ==
 
== Narrative ==
 
A prior consistent statement may be admitted as part of the narrative.<ref>
 
A prior consistent statement may be admitted as part of the narrative.<ref>
cf. ''R v RRDG'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g56f0 2014 NSSC 78] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Rosinski J}}{{at|105}} citing Watt Manual of Evidence for the rule against narrative
+
cf. ''R v RRDG'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g56f0 2014 NSSC 78] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Rosinski J}}{{atL|105|http://canlii.ca/t/g56f0}} citing Watt Manual of Evidence for the rule against narrative
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
 
The evidence may be admissible as narrative evidence where it is necessary to "help the trier of fact to understand the case and to make the material facts more comprehensible".<ref>
 
The evidence may be admissible as narrative evidence where it is necessary to "help the trier of fact to understand the case and to make the material facts more comprehensible".<ref>
''R v Y(MA)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/h3j5h 2017 CanLII 25291] (ON SC){{perONSC|Bondy J}}{{at|31}}<br>
+
''R v Y(MA)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/h3j5h 2017 CanLII 25291] (ON SC){{perONSC|Bondy J}}{{atL|31|http://canlii.ca/t/h3j5h}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
 
Acceptance of this evidence should be on condition of having no wieght and cannot be used to bolster credibility.<ref>
 
Acceptance of this evidence should be on condition of having no wieght and cannot be used to bolster credibility.<ref>
{{ibid1|Y(MA)}}{{at|31}}<br>
+
{{ibid1|Y(MA)}}{{atL|31|http://canlii.ca/t/h3j5h}}<br>
''R v Khan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gxhb8 2017 ONCA 114] (CanLII){{perONCA|Hourigan JA}}{{at|30}}<br>
+
''R v Khan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gxhb8 2017 ONCA 114] (CanLII){{perONCA|Hourigan JA}}{{atL|30|http://canlii.ca/t/gxhb8}}<br>
{{supra1|C(M)}}{{at|65}}<br>
+
''R v MC'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g8rmn 2014 ONCA 611] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{atL|65|http://canlii.ca/t/g8rmn}}<br>
 
''R v AER'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fg0x 2001 CanLII 11579] (ON CA){{perONCA|MacPherson JA}}<br>
 
''R v AER'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fg0x 2001 CanLII 11579] (ON CA){{perONCA|MacPherson JA}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
 
In most instances this type of evidence is admissible for the purpose of showing how the complaint came before the court or to provide context to an admissible statement.<ref>
 
In most instances this type of evidence is admissible for the purpose of showing how the complaint came before the court or to provide context to an admissible statement.<ref>
{{supra1|Y(MA)}}{{at|31}}<br>
+
{{supra1|Y(MA)}}{{atL|31|http://canlii.ca/t/h3j5h}}<br>
 
''R v F(JE)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1npp3 1993 CanLII 3384] (ON CA){{perONCA|Finlayson JA}}<br>
 
''R v F(JE)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1npp3 1993 CanLII 3384] (ON CA){{perONCA|Finlayson JA}}<br>
 
''R v George'', [http://canlii.ca/t/22kk6 1985 CanLII 657] (BC CA){{perBCCA|MacFarlane JA}}<br>
 
''R v George'', [http://canlii.ca/t/22kk6 1985 CanLII 657] (BC CA){{perBCCA|MacFarlane JA}}<br>
Line 202: Line 202:
  
 
In a jury trial, the trial judge should give instructions that this narrative evidence can only be used is to "assist them in assessing complainant’s credibility, in certain circumstances, particularly where the complainant is a child, and they are not to use the statements as evidence of the truth of their contents."<ref>  
 
In a jury trial, the trial judge should give instructions that this narrative evidence can only be used is to "assist them in assessing complainant’s credibility, in certain circumstances, particularly where the complainant is a child, and they are not to use the statements as evidence of the truth of their contents."<ref>  
''R v Dinardo'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1wtt2 2008 SCC 24] (CanLII){{perSCC|Charron J}}{{at|37}}<br>  
+
''R v Dinardo'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1wtt2 2008 SCC 24] (CanLII){{perSCC|Charron J}}{{atL|37|http://canlii.ca/t/1wtt2}}<br>  
 
''R v Henrich'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6hwf 1996 CanLII 2057] (ON CA){{perONCA|Osborne JA}}{{atp|746}}<br>
 
''R v Henrich'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6hwf 1996 CanLII 2057] (ON CA){{perONCA|Osborne JA}}{{atp|746}}<br>
 
''R v Fair'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1npp3 1993 CanLII 3384] (ON CA){{perONCA|Finlayson JA}}{{atps|20-21}}<br>
 
''R v Fair'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1npp3 1993 CanLII 3384] (ON CA){{perONCA|Finlayson JA}}{{atps|20-21}}<br>
Line 208: Line 208:
  
 
Where it is admitted for this purpose in a sexual assault case, it can only be used to help the trier of fact "understand how a complainant’s story was first disclosed"<ref>
 
Where it is admitted for this purpose in a sexual assault case, it can only be used to help the trier of fact "understand how a complainant’s story was first disclosed"<ref>
{{supra1|Dinardo}}{{at|37}}
+
{{supra1|Dinardo}}{{atL|37|http://canlii.ca/t/1wtt2}}
 
{{supra1|Fair}}{{atps|20-21}}<br>  
 
{{supra1|Fair}}{{atps|20-21}}<br>  
 
{{supra1|Henrich}}{{atp|746}}<br>
 
{{supra1|Henrich}}{{atp|746}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
 
It can also be used as narrative to explain why the complainant did not initially report any abuse.<ref>
 
It can also be used as narrative to explain why the complainant did not initially report any abuse.<ref>
''R v DGS'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fqc32 2012 MBQB 19] (CanLII){{perMBQB|Spivak J}}{{ats|12 to 14}}<br>
+
''R v DGS'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fqc32 2012 MBQB 19] (CanLII){{perMBQB|Spivak J}}{{atsL|12 to 14|http://canlii.ca/t/fqc32#par12}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  

Revision as of 01:47, 13 August 2019

General Principles

Prior consistent statements are presumptively inadmissible.[1]

Purpose of Rule

The prior statement is undesirable for several reasons. They are a form of hearsay and so like all hearsay are considered unreliable.[2] They are also irrelevant and lacks probative value.[3] It is a form of "oath-helping" (or self-corroboration) inappropriately enhancing the evidence. It is self-serving and self-corroborative without actually adding any value to the evidence. The consistent evidence encourages the inference that a story told consistently over time is more likely to be true even though “consistency is a quality just as agreeable to lies as to the truth”.[4]

A statement can be seen as having two components. There is the "hearsay component" and there is the "declaration component".[5]

The rule "comes into play when the statement is being adduce for its declaration component" (i.e. the fact that the statement was made, not for the truth of the statement). This fact must be shown to be relevant to the case to overcome the prohibition.[6]

Implications

The rule against consistent statement prevents evidence from both the declarant and the recipient.[7]

It is not open to a witness give evidence my simply adopting a prior statement. The judge is entitled to hear all evidence directly from the witness.[8]

Standard of Review

A jury instruction on the use of a complainant's prior consistent statement is reviewed on a question of law.[9]

  1. R v Beland, [1987] 2 SCR 398, 1987 CanLII 27 (SCC), per McIntyre J, at to 12#parhttp://canlii.ca/t/1ftm1#par10 paras http://canlii.ca/t/1ftm1#par10{{{3}}}
    R v Stirling, 2008 SCC 10 (CanLII), [2008] S.C.J. No. 10 (SCC), per Bastarache J
    R v Ellard, 2009 SCC 27 (CanLII), per Abella J
    R v Evans, 1993 CanLII 102 (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 629, per Cory J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1fs19
  2. R v Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24 (CanLII), [2008] 1 SCR 788, per Charron J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1wtt2
  3. R v Pattison, 2011 BCSC 1594 (CanLII), [2011] BCJ No. 2231, per Holmes J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/fp0f5
    Stirling, supra, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1w206
    Dinardo, supra, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1wtt2
  4. R v L(DO), 1991 CanLII 2714 (MB CA), (1991), 6 C.R. (4th) 277 at 309 (Man. C.A.), per O'Sullivan JA, rev’d 1993 CanLII 46 (SCC), (1993), 25 C.R. (4th) 285 (SCC), per L'Heureux‑Dubé J
    R v Toten, 1993 CanLII 3427 (ON CA), (1993), 83 CCC (3d) 5 (Ont. C.A.), per Doherty JA at 36 (PCS should be rejected “not ... on any principle unique to prior consistent statements, but on the very practical assessment that, generally speaking, such evidence will not provide sufficient assistance to the trier of fact to warrant its admission.")
    R v Divitaris, 2004 CanLII 9212 (ON CA), [2004] OJ No 1945 (ONCA), per Feldman JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1h27t
    David M. Paciocco and Lee Steusser, The Law of Evidence, 2nd ed. (Toronto, Ont: Irwin Law, 1999) at 305 (“In most cases, the evidence is ... of no value. It is redundant and potentially prejudicial to allow the testimony to be repeated. It may gain false credence in the eyes of the trier of fact through the consistency with which it is asserted.")
    R v Y(MA), 2017 CanLII 25291 (ON SC), per Bondy J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/h3j5h ("The rule against prior consistent statements is merely a manifestation of the general rule that evidence must be relevant to a material issue.")
    R v Nault, 2019 ABCA 37 (CanLII), [2019] AJ No 112 (ABCA), per curiam, at para http://canlii.ca/t/hx99t ("Prior consistent statements are viewed with caution because there is a danger in associating repetition with reliability. The fact that a witness has said something more than once does not make it more likely to be honest or accurate...") and ("He may not reason, without more, that because the witness has made the statement on a previous occasion, she is more likely to be telling the truth. He may not reason, without more, that a witness' out-of-court statement corroborates her own testimony.")
  5. R v Khan, 2017 ONCA 114 (CanLII), per Hourigan JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/gxhb8
  6. Y(MA), ibid., at para http://canlii.ca/t/h3j5h
  7. R v RRDG, 2014 NSSC 78 (CanLII), per Rosinski J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/g56f0 citing Watt Manual of Evidence
  8. R v Grey, 2013 BCCA 232 (CanLII), per Frankel JA , at para http://canlii.ca/t/fxf9n
  9. R v Sarrazin, 2010 ONCA 577 (CanLII), per Doherty JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/2chrm
    R v Warren, 2016 ONCA 104 (CanLII), per Roberts JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/gn7l6

Exceptions

Exceptions to the prohibition against admitting prior consistent statements include:[1]

  • Rebutting allegation of recent fabrication[2]
  • Prior eyewitness identification
  • Recent complaint
  • Show physical or mental state of accused (res gestae)[3]
  • Narrative
  • emotional state of the complainant or witness
  • Statements made on arrest
  • Explanation of accused in possession of illegal goods
  • Admission of video complaints (s.715.1, see Video Statement of Under 18 Year Old)

Where a prior consistent statement is admissible it can only be used to rehabilitate the witness, which also means it can only go to credibility.[4]

Where the statement is admitted it must usually be accompanied by a limiting jury instruction.[5]

When the prior consistent statement is received, it will not normally be for the truth of its contents but rather as circumstantial evidence of importance to the proceedings.[6]

  1. R v RRDG, 2014 NSSC 78 (CanLII), per Rosinski J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/g56f0 citing Watt Manual of Evidence
  2. R v Stirling, 2008 SCC 10 (CanLII), per Bastarache J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1w206
  3. R v MC, 2014 ONCA 611 (CanLII), per Watt JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/g8rmn("Where prior consistent statements are admitted as circumstantial evidence, the statement is not received as evidence of the truth of its contents, rather only to establish that the statement was made. That the statement was made may afford circumstantial evidence of some fact of importance in the proceeding, as for example the declarant’s state of mind.")
    R v Edgar, 2010 ONCA 529 (CanLII), per Sharpe JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/2br4d
  4. R v Almasi, 2016 ONSC 2943 (CanLII), per Goldstein J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/grn12 ("The statement is only admissible for the purpose of rehabilitating the witness. In other words, the prior consistent statement can only go credibility")
    see also R v O'Connor, 1995 CanLII 255 (ON CA), per Finlayson JA
  5. R v JEF, 2012 ONCA 177 (CanLII), [1993] OJ No 2589 (ONCA), per Watt JA
  6. MC, supra, at para http://canlii.ca/t/g8rmn

Prior Eyewitness Identification

Prior recordings of extemporaneous observations of a witness being tendered for the purpose of establishing recognition of the accused, is a permissible form of prior consistent statements.[1]

This type of evidence may be used to give credence to in-court identification.[2]

Statements of prior identification are not considered hearsay.[3]

  1. R v Langille, (1990) 59 CCC (3d) 544, 1990 CanLII 6782 (ON CA), per Osborne JA, at 556 (Ont.C.A.)
    R v Tat, [1997] OJ No 3579 (C.A.), 1997 CanLII 2234 (ON CA), per Doherty JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/6hgr
    R v Downey, 2018 NSCA 33 (CanLII), per Saunders JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/hrjs4
    E.G. Ewaschuk, Criminal Pleadings & Practice in Canada, loose-leaf (consulted on 12 March 2018), (Toronto, Ont.: Thomson Reuters, 2017) Ch. 16, pp. 16-196-197 ("A prior statement identifying or “describing the accused” is admissible as original evidence where the identifying witness identifies the accused at trial as the person in question.")
  2. Downey, supra, at para http://canlii.ca/t/hrjs4
    David M. Paciocco & Lee Stuesser, The Law of Evidence, 7th ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2015), at p. 146
  3. Downey, supra, at para http://canlii.ca/t/hrjs4
    Tat, supra, at para http://canlii.ca/t/6hgr

Recent Fabrication

The allegation of recent fabrication does not need to be explicit. There only needs be to an "apparent position" alleging a "prior contrivance".[1] However, mere contradiction of the witness is not sufficient.[2]

If a cross-examination suggests, either directly or indirectly, that a witness fabricated evidence and has reason or motive to do so, the party who called the witness may re-examine and lead evidence on a prior statement being consistent with the evidence in court.[3]

Recent fabrication exception requires the circumstances to show that the "apparent position of the opposing party is that there has been a prior contrivance"[4] Also, the prior statement was made "before a motivation to fabricate arose".[5]

The fact that the witness's "whole story" is being challenged does not necessarily mean that there is an allegation of recent fabrication.[6]

The "recency" element only requires that the witness made up a false story after the event in consideration.[7] It not not actually need to be "recent" to the testimony.[8]

A "fabrication" can refer to evidence that the witness was influenced by outside sources.[9]

The prior statement is not adduced for the truth of their contents.[10]

This rule can apply to rebut allegations of concoction to an accused who is incarcerated with a co-accused.[11]

Where a prior consistent statement is allowed in evidence on a jury trial, the jury must be given a limiting instruction on the use of the prior statement. [12]

Rebutting Credibility Attack

A judge may refer to a prior consistent statement for the purpose of evaluating a defence allegation against credibility on account of a prior inconsistent statement on the same point of fact.[13]

  1. R v KT, 2013 ONCA 257 (CanLII), per Watt JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/fx5wz
    R v Stirling, 2008 SCC 10 (CanLII), per Bastarache J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1w206
    R v Ellard, 2009 SCC 27 (CanLII), per Abella J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/23w6b
  2. KT, supra, at para http://canlii.ca/t/fx5wz
    Ellard, supra, at para http://canlii.ca/t/23w6b
  3. R v Kailayapillai, 2013 ONCA 248 (CanLII), per Doherty JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/fx43k
    see R v Wannebo (1972), 7 CCC (2d) 266 (BCCA), 1972 CanLII 1440 (BC CA), per McFarlane JA
  4. R v Evans, 1993 CanLII 102 (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 629, per Cory J, at p. 643
    R v Stirling, [2008] 1 SCR 272, 2008 SCC 10 (CanLII), per Bastarache J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1w206
  5. Stirling, ibid., at para http://canlii.ca/t/1w206
    Ellard, supra, at to 33#parhttp://canlii.ca/t/23w6b#par32 paras http://canlii.ca/t/23w6b#par32{{{3}}}
  6. R v Campbell, 1977 CanLII 1191 (ON CA), (1977) 17 O.R. (2d) 673 (Ont. C.A.), per Martin JA, ("...the fact that the whole story of a witness is challenged does not, by itself, constitute an allegation of recent fabrication: see Fox v General Medical Council, supra, at p. 1026.")
  7. R v O'Connor, 1995 CanLII 255 (ON CA), (1995), 100 CCC (3d) 285 (Ont. C.A.), per Finalyson JATemplate:Atos
    R v JAT, 2012 ONCA 177 (CanLII), [2012] OJ No 1208, per Watt JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/fqmzd
    Ellard, supra, at para http://canlii.ca/t/23w6b
  8. R v Stirling, 2008 SCC 10 (CanLII), per Bastarache J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1w206
    R v KT, 2013 ONCA 257 (CanLII), per Watt JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/fx5wz
  9. JAT, supra, at para http://canlii.ca/t/fqmzd citing Ellard, supra, at para http://canlii.ca/t/23w6b
    R v B(AJ), 1995 CanLII 94 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 413, per Sopinka J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1frkl
  10. JAT, supra , at para http://canlii.ca/t/fqmzd
  11. see R v Divitaris, 2004 CanLII 9212 (ON CA), (2004), 188 CCC (3d) 390 (Ont. C.A.), per Feldman JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1h27t
  12. Divitaris, ibid., at para http://canlii.ca/t/1h27t
  13. R v Noftall, 2018 ONCA 538 (CanLII), per curiam, at para http://canlii.ca/t/hsgwk

State of Mind

A prior consistent statement can be admissible, for its declaratory value, as circumstantial evidence showing the state of mind of a witness as long as it relates to a trial issue.[1]

  1. R v Edgar, 2010 ONCA 529 (CanLII), per Sharpe JA
    R v Zou, 2017 ONCA 90 (CanLII), per Doherty JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/gx8tc
    Y(MA), supra, at para http://canlii.ca/t/h3j5h

Spontaneous Utterance

A spontaneous and exculpatory statement of the accused shortly after arrest may be admitted to "show the accused's reaction when first confronted with the allegation, provided the accused testifies".[1]

Narrative

A prior consistent statement may be admitted as part of the narrative.[1]

The evidence may be admissible as narrative evidence where it is necessary to "help the trier of fact to understand the case and to make the material facts more comprehensible".[2] Acceptance of this evidence should be on condition of having no wieght and cannot be used to bolster credibility.[3]

In most instances this type of evidence is admissible for the purpose of showing how the complaint came before the court or to provide context to an admissible statement.[4]

In a jury trial, the trial judge should give instructions that this narrative evidence can only be used is to "assist them in assessing complainant’s credibility, in certain circumstances, particularly where the complainant is a child, and they are not to use the statements as evidence of the truth of their contents."[5]

Where it is admitted for this purpose in a sexual assault case, it can only be used to help the trier of fact "understand how a complainant’s story was first disclosed"[6] It can also be used as narrative to explain why the complainant did not initially report any abuse.[7]

  1. cf. R v RRDG, 2014 NSSC 78 (CanLII), per Rosinski J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/g56f0 citing Watt Manual of Evidence for the rule against narrative
  2. R v Y(MA), 2017 CanLII 25291 (ON SC), per Bondy J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/h3j5h
  3. Y(MA), ibid., at para http://canlii.ca/t/h3j5h
    R v Khan, 2017 ONCA 114 (CanLII), per Hourigan JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/gxhb8
    R v MC, 2014 ONCA 611 (CanLII), per Watt JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/g8rmn
    R v AER, 2001 CanLII 11579 (ON CA), per MacPherson JA
  4. Y(MA), supra, at para http://canlii.ca/t/h3j5h
    R v F(JE), 1993 CanLII 3384 (ON CA), per Finlayson JA
    R v George, 1985 CanLII 657 (BC CA), per MacFarlane JA
  5. R v Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24 (CanLII), per Charron J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1wtt2
    R v Henrich, 1996 CanLII 2057 (ON CA), per Osborne JA, at p. 746
    R v Fair, 1993 CanLII 3384 (ON CA), per Finlayson JA, at pp. 20-21
  6. Dinardo, supra, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1wtt2 Fair, supra, at pp. 20-21
    Henrich, supra, at p. 746
  7. R v DGS, 2012 MBQB 19 (CanLII), per Spivak J, at to 14#parhttp://canlii.ca/t/fqc32#par12 paras http://canlii.ca/t/fqc32#par12{{{3}}}

See Also