Res Gestae and Dying Declarations: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
m Text replacement - "\n([a-zA-Z]+){{supra}}" to " {{supra1|$1}}"
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:
{{seealso|Traditional Exceptions to Hearsay}}
{{seealso|Traditional Exceptions to Hearsay}}
Spontaneous or excited utterances are a class of exception to the hearsay rule. An utterance falls in this category where the evidence can characterize it as being a spontaneous exclamation made without premeditation or artifice and before the speaker had time to concoct something.<ref>
Spontaneous or excited utterances are a class of exception to the hearsay rule. An utterance falls in this category where the evidence can characterize it as being a spontaneous exclamation made without premeditation or artifice and before the speaker had time to concoct something.<ref>
See R v Schwartz (1978) NSR (2d) 335, [http://canlii.ca/t/htvqf 1978 CanLII 2477] (NS CA){{perNSCA|MacDonald JA}} at para 15<br>
See ''R v Schwartz'' (1978) NSR (2d) 335, [http://canlii.ca/t/htvqf 1978 CanLII 2477] (NS CA){{perNSCA|MacDonald JA}} at para 15<br>
''R v Magloir'', [http://canlii.ca/t/57pp 2003 NSCA 74] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Oland JA}}<br>
''R v Magloir'', [http://canlii.ca/t/57pp 2003 NSCA 74] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Oland JA}}<br>
''R v Slugoski'', [http://canlii.ca/t/22kj8 1985 CanLII 631] (BC CA), [1985] BCJ 1835{{perBCCA|Esson JA}} (2:1)<br>
''R v Slugoski'', [http://canlii.ca/t/22kj8 1985 CanLII 631] (BC CA), [1985] BCJ 1835{{perBCCA|Esson JA}} (2:1)<br>
Line 47: Line 47:
Dying declarations are only admissible where the declarant's death is the issue of the case and where the statement speaks to the circumstances of death.
Dying declarations are only admissible where the declarant's death is the issue of the case and where the statement speaks to the circumstances of death.
<ref>
<ref>
Schwartzenhauer v The King, [1935] SCR 367, [http://canlii.ca/t/21v2x 1935 CanLII 18] (SCC){{Plurality}}
''Schwartzenhauer v The King'', [1935] SCR 367, [http://canlii.ca/t/21v2x 1935 CanLII 18] (SCC){{Plurality}}
</ref>
</ref>


Line 60: Line 60:


The statement must have been admissible if the person was alive to give the statement as evidence.<ref>
The statement must have been admissible if the person was alive to give the statement as evidence.<ref>
Rex v Buck et al., [http://canlii.ca/t/g1386 1940 CanLII 107] (ON CA){{perONCA|Robertson CJ}}
''Rex v Buck et al.'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g1386 1940 CanLII 107] (ON CA){{perONCA|Robertson CJ}}
</ref>
</ref>


Revision as of 21:32, 16 January 2019

General Principles

See also: Traditional Exceptions to Hearsay

Spontaneous or excited utterances are a class of exception to the hearsay rule. An utterance falls in this category where the evidence can characterize it as being a spontaneous exclamation made without premeditation or artifice and before the speaker had time to concoct something.[1]

It has been characterized as words that are contemporaneous with some action. Statements are admitted at times as "words brigaded to action".[2]

The circumstantial trustworthiness of a statement arises where the declarant is under "stress or pressure" from the triggering event that reduces the possibility of "concoction or distortion".[3]

Requirements to the exception usually include:[4]

  1. utterance made soon after underlying offence
  2. speaker was in state of upset or trauma
  3. enough probative value to outweigh any prejudice

The res gestae exception to hearsay does not require necessity. Allowing the statement to be admitted even when the declarant testifies.[5]

Timing of Utterance
The location and timing of the declarant who makes a excited utterance is not determinative.[6]

The utterance does not need to be strictly contemporaneous "so long as the stress or pressure created by it is ongoing".[7]

The judge should apply a "functional" analysis to its consideration of whether the statement is "contemporaneous".[8]

The statement can be considered "contemporaneous" even if made shortly after the declarant flees the scene.[9]

  1. ↑ See R v Schwartz (1978) NSR (2d) 335, 1978 CanLII 2477 (NS CA), per MacDonald JA at para 15
    R v Magloir, 2003 NSCA 74 (CanLII), per Oland JA
    R v Slugoski, 1985 CanLII 631 (BC CA), [1985] BCJ 1835, per Esson JA (2:1)
    R v Khan, (1988), 42 CCC (3d) 197, 1988 CanLII 7106 (ON CA), per Robins JA, at p. 207, aff'd on other grounds 1990 CanLII 77 (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 531, per McLachlin J
    R v Head, 2014 MBCA 59 (CanLII), per Mainella JA at para 29
  2. ↑ R v Ly, 1996 ABCA 402 (CanLII), (1996), 193 A.R. 149; [1996] AJ No 1089 (C.A.), per McClung JA, at para 3
  3. ↑ Head, supra, at para 31
  4. ↑ R v Hamilton, 2011 NSSC 305 (CanLII), per Rosinski J at para 20
  5. ↑ Head, supra at para 33
  6. ↑ Head, supra at para 30
  7. ↑ See R v Khan, (1988), 42 CCC (3d) 197, 1988 CanLII 7106 (ON CA), per Robins JA at p. 207, aff'd on other grounds at SCC
  8. ↑ Head, supra at para 31
  9. ↑ Head, supra at para 30

Dying Declaration

Dying declarations are only admissible where the declarant's death is the issue of the case and where the statement speaks to the circumstances of death. [1]

For a dying declaration to be admissible it must satisfy four criteria:[2]

  1. the deceased had settled, hopeless expectation of almost immediate death;
  2. the statement was about the circumstances of death;
  3. The statement would have been admissible if the deceased had been able to testify; And
  4. the offence involved the homicide of the victim

The statement must have been admissible if the person was alive to give the statement as evidence.[3]

The first criteria is determined on what would be the expectations of a reasonable person.[4] This is often inferred from the extent of the injuries that were present. [5]

An "implied statement" is "any assertion not expressed by language, but rather is revealed through action".[6] Assertions by conduct include pointing.[7]

  1. ↑ Schwartzenhauer v The King, [1935] SCR 367, 1935 CanLII 18 (SCC)
  2. ↑ R v Praljak, 2012 ONSC 5262 (CanLII), per Dambrot J
    R v Hall, 2011 ONSC 5628 (CanLII), per Archibald J
  3. ↑ Rex v Buck et al., 1940 CanLII 107 (ON CA), per Robertson CJ
  4. ↑ R v Buffalo, [2003] AJ No 1738 (QB)(*no CanLII links)
    R v Mulligan, (1973) 23 CR (NS) 1 (ONSC) aff'd at (1974) 18 CCC (2d) 270 (ONCA), 1974 CanLII 1662 (ON CA), per Martin JA
  5. ↑ E.g. R v Nurse, 2014 ONSC 2340 (CanLII), per Coroza J at para 33 -- victim had an almost severed neck with intestines spilling out
  6. ↑ Nurse, ibid. at para 37
    Paciocco and Stuesser, The Law of Evidence, 6th Ed (Toronto: iRwin Law, 2011) at p. 108
  7. ↑ Nurse, supra at para 37
    R v Perciballi, 2001 CanLII 13394 (ONCA), 154 CCC (3d) 481, per Charron JA (2:1) at p. 520 to 521 (ONCA)
Retrieved from "https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Res_Gestae_and_Dying_Declarations&oldid=21035"