Res Gestae and Dying Declarations: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
m Text replacement - "{{atLz|" to "{{atL|"
Line 3: Line 3:
{{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}}{{atLz|htvqf|15}}<br>
See ''R v Schwartz'' (1978) NSR (2d) 335, [http://canlii.ca/t/htvqf 1978 CanLII 2477] (NS CA){{perNSCA|MacDonald JA}}{{atL|htvqf|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>
''R v Khan'', (1988), 42 CCC (3d) 197, [http://canlii.ca/t/gbs0g 1988 CanLII 7106] (ON CA){{perONCA|Robins JA}}{{atp|207}}, aff'd on other grounds [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsvb 1990 CanLII 77] (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 531{{perSCC|McLachlin J}}<br>
''R v Khan'', (1988), 42 CCC (3d) 197, [http://canlii.ca/t/gbs0g 1988 CanLII 7106] (ON CA){{perONCA|Robins JA}}{{atp|207}}, aff'd on other grounds [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsvb 1990 CanLII 77] (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 531{{perSCC|McLachlin J}}<br>
''R v Head'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g7cpp 2014 MBCA 59] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Mainella JA}}{{atLz|g7cpp|29}}<Br>
''R v Head'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g7cpp 2014 MBCA 59] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Mainella JA}}{{atL|g7cpp|29}}<Br>
</ref>
</ref>


It has been characterized as words that are contemporaneous with some action. Statements are admitted at times as "words brigaded to action".<ref>
It has been characterized as words that are contemporaneous with some action. Statements are admitted at times as "words brigaded to action".<ref>
''R v Ly'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dd5q 1996 ABCA 402] (CanLII), (1996), 193 A.R. 149; [1996] AJ No 1089 (C.A.){{perABCA|McClung JA}}{{atLz|2dd5q|3}}</ref>
''R v Ly'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dd5q 1996 ABCA 402] (CanLII), (1996), 193 A.R. 149; [1996] AJ No 1089 (C.A.){{perABCA|McClung JA}}{{atL|2dd5q|3}}</ref>


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".<ref>  
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".<ref>  
{{supra1|Head}}{{atLz|g7cpp|31}}<br>
{{supra1|Head}}{{atL|g7cpp|31}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Requirements to the exception usually include:<ref>  
Requirements to the exception usually include:<ref>  
''R v Hamilton'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fmg7r 2011 NSSC 305] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Rosinski J}}{{atLz|fmg7r|20}}</ref>
''R v Hamilton'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fmg7r 2011 NSSC 305] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Rosinski J}}{{atL|fmg7r|20}}</ref>
# utterance made soon after underlying offence
# utterance made soon after underlying offence
# speaker was in state of upset or trauma
# speaker was in state of upset or trauma
Line 24: Line 24:


The res gestae exception to hearsay does not require necessity. Allowing the statement to be admitted even when the declarant testifies.<ref>
The res gestae exception to hearsay does not require necessity. Allowing the statement to be admitted even when the declarant testifies.<ref>
{{supra1|Head}}{{atLz|g7cpp|33}}
{{supra1|Head}}{{atL|g7cpp|33}}
</ref>
</ref>


; Timing of Utterance
; Timing of Utterance
The location and timing of the declarant who makes a excited utterance is not determinative.<ref>  
The location and timing of the declarant who makes a excited utterance is not determinative.<ref>  
{{supra1|Head}}{{atLz|g7cpp|30}}<br>
{{supra1|Head}}{{atL|g7cpp|30}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 35: Line 35:


The judge should apply a "functional" analysis to its consideration of whether the statement is "contemporaneous".<ref>
The judge should apply a "functional" analysis to its consideration of whether the statement is "contemporaneous".<ref>
{{supra1|Head}}{{atLz|g7cpp|31}}<br>
{{supra1|Head}}{{atL|g7cpp|31}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


The statement can be considered "contemporaneous" even if made shortly after the declarant flees the scene.<ref>
The statement can be considered "contemporaneous" even if made shortly after the declarant flees the scene.<ref>
{{supra1|Head}}{{atLz|g7cpp|30}}<br>
{{supra1|Head}}{{atL|g7cpp|30}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 69: Line 69:
</ref>
</ref>
This is often inferred from the extent of the injuries that were present. <ref>
This is often inferred from the extent of the injuries that were present. <ref>
E.g. ''R v Nurse'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gf28m 2014 ONSC 2340] (CanLII){{perONSC|Coroza J}}{{atLz|gf28m|33}} -- victim had an almost severed neck with intestines spilling out</ref>
E.g. ''R v Nurse'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gf28m 2014 ONSC 2340] (CanLII){{perONSC|Coroza J}}{{atL|gf28m|33}} -- victim had an almost severed neck with intestines spilling out</ref>


An "implied statement" is "any assertion not expressed by language, but rather is revealed through action".<ref>
An "implied statement" is "any assertion not expressed by language, but rather is revealed through action".<ref>
{{ibid1|Nurse}}{{atLz|gf28m|37}}<Br>
{{ibid1|Nurse}}{{atL|gf28m|37}}<Br>
Paciocco and Stuesser, The Law of Evidence, 6th Ed (Toronto: iRwin Law, 2011){{atp|108}}<Br>
Paciocco and Stuesser, The Law of Evidence, 6th Ed (Toronto: iRwin Law, 2011){{atp|108}}<Br>
</ref>
</ref>
Assertions by conduct include pointing.<ref>
Assertions by conduct include pointing.<ref>
{{supra1|Nurse}}{{atLz|gf28m|37}}<Br>
{{supra1|Nurse}}{{atL|gf28m|37}}<Br>
''R v Perciballi'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fbs7 2001 CanLII 13394] (ONCA), 154 CCC (3d) 481{{perONCA|Charron JA}} (2:1){{atps|520 to 521}} (ONCA)</ref>
''R v Perciballi'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fbs7 2001 CanLII 13394] (ONCA), 154 CCC (3d) 481{{perONCA|Charron JA}} (2:1){{atps|520 to 521}} (ONCA)</ref>


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}

Revision as of 20:30, 19 August 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 pp. 520 to 521 (ONCA)
Retrieved from "https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Res_Gestae_and_Dying_Declarations&oldid=35867"