Character Evidence: Difference between revisions
Tag: wikieditor |
Tag: wikieditor |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Character evidence is evidence that invites the trier of fact to make an inference that the person is of a certain "type", thus inferring that the person acted consistently with that type of character. Character evidence can often become prejudicial, particularly for the accused, and so must be taken with care. | Character evidence is evidence that invites the trier of fact to make an inference that the person is of a certain "type", thus inferring that the person acted consistently with that type of character. Character evidence can often become prejudicial, particularly for the accused, and so must be taken with care. | ||
; Exclusionary Rule | |||
At common law, there is an exclusionary rule for general character evidence.<Ref> | |||
{{CanLIIRT|Handy||2002 SCC 56 (CanLII)}} at para 36 ("The exclusion of evidence of general propensity or disposition has been repeatedly affirmed in this Court and is not controversial")<Br> | |||
Morris v. The Queen, 1983 CanLII 28 (SCC), [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190{{fix}}<br> | |||
R. v. Morin, 1988 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345{{fix}}<br> | |||
R. v. B. (C.R.), 1990 CanLII 142 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 717{{fix}}<br> | |||
R. v. Arp, 1998 CanLII 769 (SCC), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339{{fix}}<br> | |||
</ref> | |||
This exclusionary is on the basis that character evidence is not probative of anything.<ref> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Vant|gjrjd|2015 ONCA 481 (CanLII)|324 CCC (3d) 109}}{{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{atL|gjrjd|64}} ("The principal reason that underlies this general exclusionary rule is that the evidence lacks probative value. Character traits, after all, are more dynamic than static, and vary over time and across situations and individuals.") | {{CanLIIRP|Vant|gjrjd|2015 ONCA 481 (CanLII)|324 CCC (3d) 109}}{{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{atL|gjrjd|64}} ("The principal reason that underlies this general exclusionary rule is that the evidence lacks probative value. Character traits, after all, are more dynamic than static, and vary over time and across situations and individuals.") | ||
</ref> | |||
The typical use of character evidence is to establish propensity. This imports certain dangers.<REf> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Handy|51r6|2002 SCC 56 (CanLII)|[2002] 2 SCR 908}}{{perSCC-H|Binnie J}} | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Revision as of 08:05, 4 February 2023
Introduction
Character evidence is evidence that invites the trier of fact to make an inference that the person is of a certain "type", thus inferring that the person acted consistently with that type of character. Character evidence can often become prejudicial, particularly for the accused, and so must be taken with care.
- Exclusionary Rule
At common law, there is an exclusionary rule for general character evidence.[1] This exclusionary is on the basis that character evidence is not probative of anything.[2]
The typical use of character evidence is to establish propensity. This imports certain dangers.[3]
- Self-Serving Evidence
Self-serving character evidence presented to simply bolster the credibility and reliability of a witness is of little value and is in danger of being fabricated.[4]
- ↑
R v Handy, 2002 SCC 56 (CanLII) (working hyperlinks pending) at para 36 ("The exclusion of evidence of general propensity or disposition has been repeatedly affirmed in this Court and is not controversial")
Morris v. The Queen, 1983 CanLII 28 (SCC), [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190(complete citation pending)
R. v. Morin, 1988 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345(complete citation pending)
R. v. B. (C.R.), 1990 CanLII 142 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 717(complete citation pending)
R. v. Arp, 1998 CanLII 769 (SCC), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339(complete citation pending)
- ↑ R v Vant, 2015 ONCA 481 (CanLII), 324 CCC (3d) 109, per Watt JA, at para 64 ("The principal reason that underlies this general exclusionary rule is that the evidence lacks probative value. Character traits, after all, are more dynamic than static, and vary over time and across situations and individuals.")
- ↑ R v Handy, 2002 SCC 56 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 908, per Binnie J
- ↑
R v P(G), 1996 CanLII 420 (ON CA), 112 CCC (3d) 263, per Rosenberg JA
R v J(FE), 1989 CanLII 7131 (ON CA), 53 CCC (3d) 64, per Galligan JA
Topics
- Character of Accused
- Character of Non-Accused Persons
- Similar Fact Evidence
- Alternative Suspect Evidence
- Complainant's Sexual History