Statements Against Interest Exception: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "\} at paras ([0-9][0-9]\-[0-9][0-9])\<" to "}{{ats|$1}}<" |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderHearsay}} | {{LevelZero}}{{HeaderHearsay}} | ||
==General Principles== | ==General Principles== | ||
{{seealso|Traditional Exceptions to Hearsay}} | {{seealso|Traditional Exceptions to Hearsay}} | ||
The exception to hearsay includes admission that "in the broad sense refers to any statement made by a declarant and tendered as evidnece at trial by the opposing party".<ref> | The exception to hearsay includes admission that "in the broad sense refers to any statement made by a declarant and tendered as evidnece at trial by the opposing party".<ref> | ||
| Line 26: | Line 25: | ||
Statements by the accused addressed to his wife will be admissible against him.<ref> | Statements by the accused addressed to his wife will be admissible against him.<ref> | ||
R v | ''R v RRW (No. 2)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2c840 2010 NLTD 137] (CanLII){{perNLSC|Goodridge J}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 51: | Line 50: | ||
''R v Strand Electric Ltd'', [1969] 1 OR 1990, [http://canlii.ca/t/g15sq 1968 CanLII 421] (ON CA), OJ 1291 (ONCA){{perONCA|MacKay JA}}<Br> | ''R v Strand Electric Ltd'', [1969] 1 OR 1990, [http://canlii.ca/t/g15sq 1968 CanLII 421] (ON CA), OJ 1291 (ONCA){{perONCA|MacKay JA}}<Br> | ||
''R v Petro Canada'', [http://canlii.ca/t/23b6m 2009 ONCJ 179] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Manno J}}<Br> | ''R v Petro Canada'', [http://canlii.ca/t/23b6m 2009 ONCJ 179] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Manno J}}<Br> | ||
R v Dana Canada Corp., [http://canlii.ca/t/21tdc 2008 ONCJ 644] (CanLII), [2008] OJ 4487 (ONCJ){{perONCJ|D Harris J}}<Br> | ''R v Dana Canada Corp.'', [http://canlii.ca/t/21tdc 2008 ONCJ 644] (CanLII), [2008] OJ 4487 (ONCJ){{perONCJ|D Harris J}}<Br> | ||
''R v Syncrude'', [http://canlii.ca/t/29c6j 2010 ABPC 123] (CanLII){{perABPC| Tjosvold J}}<Br> | ''R v Syncrude'', [http://canlii.ca/t/29c6j 2010 ABPC 123] (CanLII){{perABPC| Tjosvold J}}<Br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
Revision as of 09:14, 11 February 2019
General Principles
The exception to hearsay includes admission that "in the broad sense refers to any statement made by a declarant and tendered as evidnece at trial by the opposing party".[1]
- Statements by Accused
A statement made by the accused is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule where the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect.[2]
Where a statement fits into the category of admission against interest, it becomes preemptively admissible.[3]
There is some debate on whether an admission by the accused is hearsay at all.[4]
These statements can be admitted without analysis of necessity and reliability.[5]
Statements by the accused addressed to his wife will be admissible against him.[6]
- Statements by a Third Party
A statement can only be binding against the party who made them. Thus, a out-of-court statement can only be admissible in a trial against the person who made them.[7]
A statement of a third party admitting to the murder cannot be used in the murder trial of another person. The defence would have to call that third party as a witness.[8]
- Statements by Co-Accused
Out-of-Court statements made by the co-accused are hearsay and cannot be used as corroborative evidence at trial of the accused.[9] Should the evidence be accepted as against the co-accused, limiting instructions are required to prevent its use against the accused.[10]
- Corporate Accused
Statements made by an agent of an organization that is within his scope of authority to a third person is admissible against their interests where the statement is part of a communciation which the agent is authorized to have with the third party.[11]
- ↑
R v Violette, 2008 BCSC 422 (CanLII), [2008] BCJ No 2781, per Romilly J, at paras 63 to 65 - in context of Wiretaps
- ↑
R v Terry, 1996 CanLII 199 (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 207, per McLachlin J, at para 28 (“an admission against interest made by the accused is admissible as a recognized exception to the hearsay rule, provided that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.”)
- ↑
R v Ciancio, 2007 BCSC 777 (CanLII), per Singh J at para 24 citing Sopinka on Evidence
- ↑
e.g. R v Evans, 1993 CanLII 86 (SCC), [1993] 3 SCR 653, per Sopinka J at para 24
Ciancio, supra, at paras 15 to 36
- ↑
R v Foreman, 2002 CanLII 6305 (ON CA), (2002), 169 CCC (3d) 489 (Ont. C.A.), per Doherty JA at p. 502
- ↑ R v RRW (No. 2), 2010 NLTD 137 (CanLII), per Goodridge J
- ↑
R v Abu-Sharife, 2006 BCSC 902 (CanLII), per Shabbits J at para 29
- ↑ R v Yu, 2000 BCCA 626 (CanLII), per Mackenzie JA
- ↑
R v Rhyno, 2011 NSCA 120 (CanLII), per curiam, at para 5
- ↑
Rhyno, ibid., at para 7
Ward, supra, at paras 32-38
- ↑
R v Strand Electric Ltd, [1969] 1 OR 1990, 1968 CanLII 421 (ON CA), OJ 1291 (ONCA), per MacKay JA
R v Petro Canada, 2009 ONCJ 179 (CanLII), per Manno J
R v Dana Canada Corp., 2008 ONCJ 644 (CanLII), [2008] OJ 4487 (ONCJ), per D Harris J
R v Syncrude, 2010 ABPC 123 (CanLII), per Tjosvold J