View source for Re-Direct Examinations

{{LevelOne}}{{HeaderTrials}}
==General Principles==
{{seealso|Examinations}}

Generally, once cross-examination is complete a witness cannot introduce new facts not covered in cross-examination except where permitted as "re-examination".<ref>
''R v Lavoie'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5rmf 2000 ABCA 318] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}}{{at|46}} citing The Law of Evidence in Canada ("The witness is not ordinarily allowed to supplement the examination-in-chief by introducing new facts which were not covered in cross-examination.")
</ref>

;Purpose of Re-Direct
The "purpose of re-examination is to enable the witness to explain and clarify relevant testimony which may have been weakened or obscured in cross-examination."<ref>
{{supra1|Lavoie}}{{at|46}} citing The Law of Evidence in Canada{{atp|879}}<br>
</ref>It is purpose is to rehabiliate and explain the evidence elicited in cross-examination.<ref>
''R v Candir'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2754x 2009 ONCA 915] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{at|148}} ("The purpose of re-examination is largely rehabilitative and explanatory.")<br>
</ref>

;Valid Subjects of Re-Direct
A party calling a witness is entitled to re-examine the witness after cross-examination.<ref>
''R v Moore'' (1984), 15 CCC (3d) 543 (Ont. C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/g945z 1984 CanLII 3542] (ON CA){{perONCA|Martin JA}}</ref>
But the scope of the re-examination is limited to matters that arose in cross-examination.<ref>''R v Moore'', at 66 cited in ''R v Evans'', [1993] 2 SCR 639, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frzq 1993 CanLII 86] (SCC){{perSCC|Sopinka J}} at 36</ref> Its purpose is to allow the witness to explain or qualify answers that were given in cross-examination.<ref>
{{ibid1|Evans}} ("The questions that can be asked of right on re-examination should focus on elements from the against-examination relating to new facts or issues raised during the examination and require explanations for asked questions and answers in cons-examination") citing Ewaschuk in Criminal Pleadings & Practice in Canada , 2 e ed (p 16.29 by 16.. 2510)<br>
{{supra1|Candir}}{{at|148}} ("... The witness is afforded the opportunity, under questioning by the examiner who called the witness in the first place, to explain, clarify or qualify answers given in cross-examination that are considered damaging to the examiner's case.  The examiner has no right to introduce new subjects in re-examination, topics that should have been covered, if at all, in examination in-chief of the witness. ...")<br>
''R v Linklater'', [http://canlii.ca/t/22nhr 2009 ONCA 172] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}}{{at|13}}<br>
''Barboza-Pena c. R'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1x9hd 2008 QCCA 1133] (CanLII){{TheCourtQCCA}}{{at|36}}<br>
</ref>

Those limited matters arising from cross-examination must be the purpose of (1) rehabilitating the witness from any damaging evidence brought up on cross-examination and (2) explaining any ambiguous or misleading information elicited on cross-examination.<ref>
E.G. Ewaschuk in Criminal Pleadings and Practice Canada, 2d ed., in these words at p. 16.29{{at|16}}:2510 (Counsel is entitled to ask questions that "relate to matters arising out of the cross-examination which deal with new matters, or with matters raised in examination-in-chief which require explanation as to questions put and answers given in cross-examination.")<br>
{{supra1|Candir}}{{at|148}}<br>
</ref>

;Form of Questions
The rule against leading questions still applies in re-examination.<ref>
{{supra1|Moore}} at 66<br>
See Phipson on Evidence (13th Ed.){{Atp|823-24}}; Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed.), vol. 6{{Atp|567}}<br>
</ref>

;Improper Re-Direct
Re-examination may not be used to improperly bolster the credibility of the witness after impeaching credibility in cross-examination.<ref>{{supra1|Moore}}</ref>

The right to re-examine is not absolute but should be permitted where it is not repetitious and "genuinely arises from cross-examination".<ref>
''R v Schell'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fvhsp 2013 ABCA 4] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}} ("re-examination is permitted if it is not merely repetitious and if it genuinely arises from the cross-examination")
</ref>

; Use of Prior Statements in Re-Direct
The re-examination cannot be used to introduce a second inconsistent statement after a first inconsistent statement was introduced in cross.<ref>
''R v Horsefall'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2327h 1991 CanLII 5768] (BC CA){{perBCCA|Goldie JA}}
</ref>

A Crown may play an entire statement back to the witness in re-examination and put in as an exhibit.<ref>
''R v Patterson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/7clf 2003 CanLII 30300] (ON CA){{perONCA|Gillese JA}}{{at|49}}<br>
</ref>

Where recent fabrication arises in cross, the re-direct may be used to introduce a prior consistent statement of the witness.<ref>
''R v Lavoie'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5rmf 2000 ABCA 318] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}}<br>
see also [[Prior Consistent Statements]]
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==New Subjects Usually Not Allowed==
The judge should generally not permit counsel to "introduce" on re-direct "new subjects" where the topic "should have been covered" in direct examination.<ref>
''R v Candir'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2754x 2009 ONCA 915] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{at|148}} (After describing the rehabiliatory nature of re-direct, the judge stated that "[t]he examiner has no right to introduce new subjects in re-examination, topics that should have been covered, if at all, in examination in-chief of the witness.")
</ref>

;Discretion to Permit "new facts" ''not'' arising from Cross-Examination
New facts can be permitted in re-examination at the discretion of the judge. <ref>
{{supra1|Moore}} at 66<br>
{{supra1|Candir}}{{at|148}} ("A trial judge has a discretion, however, to grant leave to the party calling a witness to introduce new subjects in re-examination, but must afford the opposing party the right of further cross-examination on the new facts")
</ref>
If permitted, the judge must also permit the opposing counsel the firt to cross-examine further.<ref>
{{supra1|Candir}}{{at|148}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
==Re-Direct vs Reply or Rebuttal==

In contrast to re-direct, reply or rebuttal evidence is only permitted where the evidence was not reasonably anticipated.<ref>
see ''R v KT'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fx5wz 2013 ONCA 257] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}}<br>
see also [[Trial Process#Reply or Rebuttal|Reply or Rebuttal evidence]]<Br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==
* [[Trial Process#Reply or Rebuttal|Reply or Rebuttal]]