Examinations-in-Chief: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
m Text replacement - "<Br>" to "<br>"
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z][a-z]+)," to "''$1'',"
Line 6: Line 6:
==Rule Against Leading Questions==
==Rule Against Leading Questions==
In general, counsel cannot ask leading questions on of the witness that they call.<ref>
In general, counsel cannot ask leading questions on of the witness that they call.<ref>
c.f. R v Bhardwaj, [http://canlii.ca/t/20bk4 2008 ABQB 504] (CanLII){{perABQB|Lee J}} at para 45 suggests that it only goes to weight
c.f. ''R v Bhardwaj'', [http://canlii.ca/t/20bk4 2008 ABQB 504] (CanLII){{perABQB|Lee J}} at para 45 suggests that it only goes to weight
( "There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked.”)</ref> Leading questions are questions that clearly seek a particular answer (eg. "you saw the accused, didn't you?") or are questions that assume a foundation not in evidence (eg. "what happened after the accused stabbed him?").<ref>  
( "There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked.”)</ref> Leading questions are questions that clearly seek a particular answer (eg. "you saw the accused, didn't you?") or are questions that assume a foundation not in evidence (eg. "what happened after the accused stabbed him?").<ref>  
R v Rose [http://canlii.ca/t/1fbr4 2001 CanLII 24079] (ONCA){{perONCA|Chasrron JA}} (3:0) at 9<br>
R v Rose [http://canlii.ca/t/1fbr4 2001 CanLII 24079] (ONCA){{perONCA|Chasrron JA}} (3:0) at 9<br>
Line 14: Line 14:


'''Rationale'''<br>
'''Rationale'''<br>
The reason for not allowing leading questions include:<ref>R v Rose, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fbr4 2001 CanLII 24079], (2001) 153 CCC 3d 225 (ONCA){{perONCA|Charron JA}} (3:0)</ref>
The reason for not allowing leading questions include:<ref>''R v Rose'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fbr4 2001 CanLII 24079], (2001) 153 CCC 3d 225 (ONCA){{perONCA|Charron JA}} (3:0)</ref>
*bias of the witness in favour of the calling party
*bias of the witness in favour of the calling party
*the danger that the calling party will only bring out helpful information without any balance that could come from the witnesses own version<ref>Maves v Grand Truck Railways (1913) 5 WWR 212 (ABCA){{NOCANLII}}</ref>
*the danger that the calling party will only bring out helpful information without any balance that could come from the witnesses own version<ref>Maves v Grand Truck Railways (1913) 5 WWR 212 (ABCA){{NOCANLII}}</ref>
*the possibility that the witness will merely agree with everything put to the witness by the calling party.<ref>Maves v Grant Truck Pacific Railway Co (1913) 6 Alta LR 396{{NOCANLII}}<br>  
*the possibility that the witness will merely agree with everything put to the witness by the calling party.<ref>Maves v Grant Truck Pacific Railway Co (1913) 6 Alta LR 396{{NOCANLII}}<br>  
Connor v Brant (1914) 31 OLR 274{{NOCANLII}}<br> Sopkina, Law of Evidence in Canada at ss.16.33<br>
Connor v Brant (1914) 31 OLR 274{{NOCANLII}}<br> Sopkina, Law of Evidence in Canada at ss.16.33<br>
R v Clancey, [1992] O.J.  No. 3968 (Ont. Sup. Ct.){{NOCANLII}}{{perONSC|Watt J}} (the witness “may be too disposed to assent to the proposition of counsel, rather than upon reflection or exertion of the witness’ own and true memory”)
''R v Clancey'', [1992] O.J.  No. 3968 (Ont. Sup. Ct.){{NOCANLII}}{{perONSC|Watt J}} (the witness “may be too disposed to assent to the proposition of counsel, rather than upon reflection or exertion of the witness’ own and true memory”)
</ref>
</ref>
* a witness who is nervous, not alert, confused or otherwise easily persuaded may accept the suggestion of a leading question without reflection.<ref>Maves</ref> The leading question may "impose the questioner’s will on the witness so as to elicit inaccurate information, absent an intention to do so on the part of the counsel or witness”<ref>MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition p. 18:10 </ref>
* a witness who is nervous, not alert, confused or otherwise easily persuaded may accept the suggestion of a leading question without reflection.<ref>Maves</ref> The leading question may "impose the questioner’s will on the witness so as to elicit inaccurate information, absent an intention to do so on the part of the counsel or witness”<ref>MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition p. 18:10 </ref>


The importance of not leading depends on the circumstances. The rule should be flexible at the least for the sake of expediency.<ref>
The importance of not leading depends on the circumstances. The rule should be flexible at the least for the sake of expediency.<ref>
R v Rose, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fbr4 2001 CanLII 24079] (ON CA){{perONCA|Charron JA}} (3:0)</ref>
''R v Rose'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fbr4 2001 CanLII 24079] (ON CA){{perONCA|Charron JA}} (3:0)</ref>


'''Exception'''<br>
'''Exception'''<br>
Line 30: Line 30:
* introductory or non-controversial matters such as name, address, position, etc.<ref>
* introductory or non-controversial matters such as name, address, position, etc.<ref>
Maves v Grand Truck Railways, at 219 (ABCA){{NOCANLII}}<br>
Maves v Grand Truck Railways, at 219 (ABCA){{NOCANLII}}<br>
R v Muise, [http://canlii.ca/t/fzhtg 2013 NSCA 81] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Hamilton JA}} at para 23<br>
''R v Muise'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fzhtg 2013 NSCA 81] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Hamilton JA}} at para 23<br>
R v Situ, [http://canlii.ca/t/1lgqh 2005 ABCA 275] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0) at para 9<br>
''R v Situ'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1lgqh 2005 ABCA 275] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0) at para 9<br>
Cross on Evidence 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths 1967) p. 189<br>
Cross on Evidence 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths 1967) p. 189<br>
{{supra1|Rose}} at para 9</ref>
{{supra1|Rose}} at para 9</ref>
Line 43: Line 43:
* where it is a complicated matter, at the judge's discretion<ref>{{supra1|Delisle}}.</ref>
* where it is a complicated matter, at the judge's discretion<ref>{{supra1|Delisle}}.</ref>


A judge has discretion to allow leading where it is in the interest of justice.<ref>Reference Re R v Coffin, [http://canlii.ca/t/22tqn 1956 CanLII 94] (SCC), [1956] SCR 191{{Plurality}}, p. 22 <br>
A judge has discretion to allow leading where it is in the interest of justice.<ref>Reference Re ''R v Coffin'', [http://canlii.ca/t/22tqn 1956 CanLII 94] (SCC), [1956] SCR 191{{Plurality}}, p. 22 <br>
{{supra1|Muise}} at para 23<br>
{{supra1|Muise}} at para 23<br>
</ref>
</ref>
Line 49: Line 49:
'''Consequence of Leading Questions'''<br>
'''Consequence of Leading Questions'''<br>
The answer to a leading question is not necessaries inadmissible but will carry very little or less weight, especially on critical issues.<ref> Moor v Moor [1954] 2 All ER 458 (CA)
The answer to a leading question is not necessaries inadmissible but will carry very little or less weight, especially on critical issues.<ref> Moor v Moor [1954] 2 All ER 458 (CA)
R v Williams, (1982), 66 CCC (2d) 234 (Ont. C.A.){{NOCANLII}} see p. 236 (“It is clear, however, that an answer elicited by a leading question is entitled to little, if any, weight.”)<br>
''R v Williams'', (1982), 66 CCC (2d) 234 (Ont. C.A.){{NOCANLII}} see p. 236 (“It is clear, however, that an answer elicited by a leading question is entitled to little, if any, weight.”)<br>
R v Nicholson, [http://canlii.ca/t/5skh 1998 ABCA 290] (CanLII), (1998), 129 CCC (3d) 198 (Alta. C.A.){{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0)<br>
''R v Nicholson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5skh 1998 ABCA 290] (CanLII), (1998), 129 CCC (3d) 198 (Alta. C.A.){{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0)<br>
R v Bhardwaj, [http://canlii.ca/t/20bk4 2008 ABQB 504] (CanLII){{perABQB|Lee J}} at para. 45 ("...the answers to leading questions are admissible, although the trier‑of‑fact may give less weight to a witness’s answer elicited by a leading question. ... There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked. The examiner in asking a leading question runs the risk that the answer will be given less weight than if elicited in a non‑leading manner. ")<br>
''R v Bhardwaj'', [http://canlii.ca/t/20bk4 2008 ABQB 504] (CanLII){{perABQB|Lee J}} at para. 45 ("...the answers to leading questions are admissible, although the trier‑of‑fact may give less weight to a witness’s answer elicited by a leading question. ... There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked. The examiner in asking a leading question runs the risk that the answer will be given less weight than if elicited in a non‑leading manner. ")<br>
R v Gordon-Brietzke, 2012 ABPC 221 (CanLII){{perABPC|Allen J}} at paras 41-57<br>
R v Gordon-Brietzke, 2012 ABPC 221 (CanLII){{perABPC|Allen J}} at paras 41-57<br>
R v Parkes, [2005] OJ No 937{{NOCANLII}} at para. 44<br>
''R v Parkes'', [2005] OJ No 937{{NOCANLII}} at para. 44<br>
R v Cawthorne, [http://canlii.ca/t/ghgkg 2015 CMAC 1] (CanLII), ''per'' Zinn JA at para 62 ("Evidence obtained by a leading question is not inadmissible; rather, it is up to the trier of fact to consider whether the weight of the answer is negatively affected by the way in which it was produced")<br>
''R v Cawthorne'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ghgkg 2015 CMAC 1] (CanLII), ''per'' Zinn JA at para 62 ("Evidence obtained by a leading question is not inadmissible; rather, it is up to the trier of fact to consider whether the weight of the answer is negatively affected by the way in which it was produced")<br>
S. Casey Hill, David M. Tanovich & Louis P. Strezos, McWilliams’ Canadian Criminal Evidence, 5th ed. (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2013) (loose-leaf revision 2013-4), at 21-8 to 21-16<br>
S. Casey Hill, David M. Tanovich & Louis P. Strezos, McWilliams’ Canadian Criminal Evidence, 5th ed. (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2013) (loose-leaf revision 2013-4), at 21-8 to 21-16<br>
</ref>
</ref>
Line 60: Line 60:
The weight given to an answer from a leading question will depend on "how leading the question was, the subject matter and other evidence before the Court."
The weight given to an answer from a leading question will depend on "how leading the question was, the subject matter and other evidence before the Court."
<ref>
<ref>
R v Bhardwaj, (2008), [http://canlii.ca/t/20bk4 2008 ABQB 504] (CanLII), 456 A.R. 313 (Alta. Q.B.){{perABQB|Lee J}} at para 45 <br>
''R v Bhardwaj'', (2008), [http://canlii.ca/t/20bk4 2008 ABQB 504] (CanLII), 456 A.R. 313 (Alta. Q.B.){{perABQB|Lee J}} at para 45 <br>
MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition at p. 18 - 16<br>
MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition at p. 18 - 16<br>
</ref>
</ref>
Line 73: Line 73:


The use of leading questions will be tolerated more when for the purpose of a "controlled examination" rather than where is becomes a "cross‑examination for the purpose of discrediting or contradicting" the witness.<ref>
The use of leading questions will be tolerated more when for the purpose of a "controlled examination" rather than where is becomes a "cross‑examination for the purpose of discrediting or contradicting" the witness.<ref>
R v Muise, [http://canlii.ca/t/fzhtg 2013 NSCA 81] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Hamilton JA}} (3:0\){{at|27}}<br>
''R v Muise'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fzhtg 2013 NSCA 81] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Hamilton JA}} (3:0\){{at|27}}<br>
R v Situ, [http://canlii.ca/t/1lgqh 2005 ABCA 275] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0\){{at|12}}<br>
''R v Situ'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1lgqh 2005 ABCA 275] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0\){{at|12}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


{{Reflist|2}}
{{Reflist|2}}

Revision as of 09:50, 13 January 2019

General Principle

See also: Examinations

An examination-in-chief or direct examination is where the party calling a witness to give evidence asks the witness questions to elicit evidence.

Rule Against Leading Questions

In general, counsel cannot ask leading questions on of the witness that they call.[1] Leading questions are questions that clearly seek a particular answer (eg. "you saw the accused, didn't you?") or are questions that assume a foundation not in evidence (eg. "what happened after the accused stabbed him?").[2]

Rationale
The reason for not allowing leading questions include:[3]

  • bias of the witness in favour of the calling party
  • the danger that the calling party will only bring out helpful information without any balance that could come from the witnesses own version[4]
  • the possibility that the witness will merely agree with everything put to the witness by the calling party.[5]
  • a witness who is nervous, not alert, confused or otherwise easily persuaded may accept the suggestion of a leading question without reflection.[6] The leading question may "impose the questioner’s will on the witness so as to elicit inaccurate information, absent an intention to do so on the part of the counsel or witness”[7]

The importance of not leading depends on the circumstances. The rule should be flexible at the least for the sake of expediency.[8]

Exception
It is usually permissible to lead on a number of issues:

  • introductory or non-controversial matters such as name, address, position, etc.[9]
  • for the purpose of identifying persons or things[10]
  • where "necessary to direct the witness to a particular matter or field of inquiry."[11]
  • to allow one witness to contradict another regarding statements made by that other[12]
  • where the witness is declared hostile;
  • where the witness is defective based on age, education, language, mental capacity[13]
  • where it is a complicated matter, at the judge's discretion[14]

A judge has discretion to allow leading where it is in the interest of justice.[15]

Consequence of Leading Questions
The answer to a leading question is not necessaries inadmissible but will carry very little or less weight, especially on critical issues.[16]

The weight given to an answer from a leading question will depend on "how leading the question was, the subject matter and other evidence before the Court." [17] It will often be that the inappropriateness of the question, and so the weight given to the answer, will be assessed in the light of whole circumstances of the case, after subsequent testimony of the witness.[18]

Objections
Objections should not be made to leading questions unless the question is "critical" to the case.[19]

The use of leading questions will be tolerated more when for the purpose of a "controlled examination" rather than where is becomes a "cross‑examination for the purpose of discrediting or contradicting" the witness.[20]

  1. ↑ c.f. R v Bhardwaj, 2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII), per Lee J at para 45 suggests that it only goes to weight ( "There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked.”)
  2. ↑ R v Rose 2001 CanLII 24079 (ONCA), per Chasrron JA (3:0) at 9
    R v W(EM), [2011] 2 SCR 542, 2011 SCC 31 (CanLII), per McLachlin CJ (6:1\), at para 9
    Nicolls v Kemp (1915), 171 E.R. 408 per Lord Ellenborough (“If questions are asked, to which the answer yes or no would be conclusive, they would certainly be objectionable.”)
  3. ↑ R v Rose, 2001 CanLII 24079, (2001) 153 CCC 3d 225 (ONCA), per Charron JA (3:0)
  4. ↑ Maves v Grand Truck Railways (1913) 5 WWR 212 (ABCA)(*no CanLII links)
  5. ↑ Maves v Grant Truck Pacific Railway Co (1913) 6 Alta LR 396(*no CanLII links)
    Connor v Brant (1914) 31 OLR 274(*no CanLII links)
    Sopkina, Law of Evidence in Canada at ss.16.33
    R v Clancey, [1992] O.J. No. 3968 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)(*no CanLII links) , per Watt J (the witness “may be too disposed to assent to the proposition of counsel, rather than upon reflection or exertion of the witness’ own and true memory”)
  6. ↑ Maves
  7. ↑ MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition p. 18:10
  8. ↑ R v Rose, 2001 CanLII 24079 (ON CA), per Charron JA (3:0)
  9. ↑ Maves v Grand Truck Railways, at 219 (ABCA)(*no CanLII links)
    R v Muise, 2013 NSCA 81 (CanLII), per Hamilton JA at para 23
    R v Situ, 2005 ABCA 275 (CanLII), per curiam (3:0) at para 9
    Cross on Evidence 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths 1967) p. 189
    Rose, supra at para 9
  10. ↑ Delisle, "Evidence: Principles and Problems" (7th Ed.) at p. 414, states at common law
  11. ↑ Rose, ibid. at para 9
    Muise, supra at para 23
  12. ↑ Delisle, supra
  13. ↑ Delisle, supra
  14. ↑ Delisle, supra.
  15. ↑ Reference Re R v Coffin, 1956 CanLII 94 (SCC), [1956] SCR 191, p. 22
    Muise, supra at para 23
  16. ↑ Moor v Moor [1954] 2 All ER 458 (CA) R v Williams, (1982), 66 CCC (2d) 234 (Ont. C.A.)(*no CanLII links) see p. 236 (“It is clear, however, that an answer elicited by a leading question is entitled to little, if any, weight.”)
    R v Nicholson, 1998 ABCA 290 (CanLII), (1998), 129 CCC (3d) 198 (Alta. C.A.), per curiam (3:0)
    R v Bhardwaj, 2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII), per Lee J at para. 45 ("...the answers to leading questions are admissible, although the trier‑of‑fact may give less weight to a witness’s answer elicited by a leading question. ... There is no rule of law that the answer to a leading question must be given no weight, or that they cannot be asked. The examiner in asking a leading question runs the risk that the answer will be given less weight than if elicited in a non‑leading manner. ")
    R v Gordon-Brietzke, 2012 ABPC 221 (CanLII), per Allen J at paras 41-57
    R v Parkes, [2005] OJ No 937(*no CanLII links) at para. 44
    R v Cawthorne, 2015 CMAC 1 (CanLII), per Zinn JA at para 62 ("Evidence obtained by a leading question is not inadmissible; rather, it is up to the trier of fact to consider whether the weight of the answer is negatively affected by the way in which it was produced")
    S. Casey Hill, David M. Tanovich & Louis P. Strezos, McWilliams’ Canadian Criminal Evidence, 5th ed. (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2013) (loose-leaf revision 2013-4), at 21-8 to 21-16
  17. ↑ R v Bhardwaj, (2008), 2008 ABQB 504 (CanLII), 456 A.R. 313 (Alta. Q.B.), per Lee J at para 45
    MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition at p. 18 - 16
  18. ↑ MacWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence 4th Edition at p. 18 - 16 (“The weight ... given ... is thus best assessed in light of the circumstances of the case. ...subsequent testimony from the witness, whether in chief or cross-examination, may make clear that the leading question had no improper impact on the answer elicited.”)
  19. ↑ FJ. Wrottesley, Examination of Witnesses in Court, 3rd Ed. at p. 42
    Cox, "Criminal Evidence Handbook", 2nd Ed. at p. 114
  20. ↑ R v Muise, 2013 NSCA 81 (CanLII), per Hamilton JA (3:0\), at para 27
    R v Situ, 2005 ABCA 275 (CanLII), per curiam (3:0\), at para 12
Retrieved from "https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Examinations-in-Chief&oldid=16456"