Character of Non-Accused Persons: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
m Text replacement - "{{perONCA|Martin JA}}" to "{{perONCA-H|Martin JA}}"
m Text replacement - "\'\'R v ([a-zA-Z]+)\'\', \[http\:\/\/canlii\.ca\/t\/([a-zA-Z0-9_]+) ([1-2][0-9]{3} [BASMOQNP][CBKNCSL][A-Z]+ [0-9]+)\] \(CanLII\)\{" to "{{CanLIIR|$1|$2|$3 (CanLII)}}{"
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 25: Line 25:
; Habit
; Habit
There must be "sufficient regularity" in the conduct forming the habit in order to lend support of the strength of the probative value.<ref>
There must be "sufficient regularity" in the conduct forming the habit in order to lend support of the strength of the probative value.<ref>
''R v Vant'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gjrjd 2015 ONCA 481] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{atL|gjrjd|68}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Vant|gjrjd|2015 ONCA 481 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{atL|gjrjd|68}}<br>
</ref>  
</ref>  
Habit that are parts of the "ordinary affairs of life" are not usually consistent enough to be considered "invariable" to be probative.<ref>
Habit that are parts of the "ordinary affairs of life" are not usually consistent enough to be considered "invariable" to be probative.<ref>
Line 61: Line 61:


The admission of scopeletti evidence is at the discretion of the trial judge.<ref>
The admission of scopeletti evidence is at the discretion of the trial judge.<ref>
''R v Dolph'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1g4ct 2003 MBQB 294] (CanLII){{perMBQB|Oliphant ACJ}}{{atL|1g4ct|14}}</ref>
{{CanLIIR|Dolph|1g4ct|2003 MBQB 294 (CanLII)}}{{perMBQB|Oliphant ACJ}}{{atL|1g4ct|14}}</ref>


Relevancy is the only limit on prior misconduct of a deceased in where self-defence has been raised.<ref>
Relevancy is the only limit on prior misconduct of a deceased in where self-defence has been raised.<ref>

Revision as of 17:54, 27 January 2021

General Principles

See also: Character of Accused
Character of Victim

Character or disposition evidence of a victim of crime is generally irrelevant.[1] Exception exists where the evidence relates specifically to a "material issue and where its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect".[2]

  1. ↑ R v Vant, 2015 ONCA 481 (CanLII), per Watt JA, at para 66 ("...as a general rule, the character or disposition of the victim of an offence is irrelevant")
    R v Diu, 2000 CanLII 4535 (ON CA), , 49 O.R. (3d) 40 (C.A.), per Sharpe JA, at para 39 ("In general, the character of the victim of a crime is irrelevant and neither the accused nor the Crown may lead such evidence. ")
  2. ↑ Vant, supra, at para 66 ("This general rule is not unyielding where the evidence of the disposition of the victim relates to a material issue and where its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect")
    Diu, supra, at para 41
    R v Scopelliti, 1981 CanLII 1787 (ON CA), , 63 CCC (2d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), per Martin JA, at p. 493

Types of Evidence

Reputation

While it is not permitted to ask a witness about the honesty of another witness, a witness may sometimes be asked as to the reputation for honesty in the community of another witness.[1]

Habit

There must be "sufficient regularity" in the conduct forming the habit in order to lend support of the strength of the probative value.[2] Habit that are parts of the "ordinary affairs of life" are not usually consistent enough to be considered "invariable" to be probative.[3] The determination will vary from case-to-case.[4]

Evidence of habit (a person's regular response to a repeated situation, often being semi-automatic) is considered of "greater probative value than evidence of general traits of character or disposition".[5]

Criminal Record

The criminal record may assist in proving the victim had a violent disposition to carry a weapon in altercation increasing the likelihood that the victim reached for a gun at the time of being shot.[6]

The deceased's criminal record for non-violent offences is not probative.[7] To admit such evidence would invite the prohibited reasoning that the victim's "demise was a civic improvement".[8]

  1. ↑ R v Gonzague (1983) 4 CCC (3d) 505 (ONCA), 1983 CanLII 3541 (ON CA), per Martin JA
  2. ↑ R v Vant, 2015 ONCA 481 (CanLII), per Watt JA, at para 68
  3. ↑ Vant, ibid., at para 68
  4. ↑ Vant, ibid., at para 68
  5. ↑ Vant, ibid., at para 67
  6. ↑ R v Head, 2014 MBCA 59 (CanLII), per Mainella JA, at para 16
    R v Sims, 1994 CanLII 1298 (BC CA), , (1994), 87 CCC (3d) 402, per Mainella JA at 421-26 (B.C. C.A.)
  7. ↑ Head, supra, at para 15
  8. ↑ R v Varga (R.L.) 2001 CanLII 8610 (ON CA), (2001), 150 O.A.C. 358, per Doherty JA, at para 71, leave to appeal to SCC ref’d, [2002] SCCA No 278

Character of Victim Relating to Self-Defence ("Scopeletti" Evidence)

Where self-defence is raised, the accused may elicit evidence of the victim's tendency of being an aggressor and to establish an attack upon the accused by the victim. This is known as Scopeletti evidence.[1] Scopeletti evidence must be of "sufficiently probative value for the purpose for which it is tendered to justify its admission".[2]

The admission of scopeletti evidence is at the discretion of the trial judge.[3]

Relevancy is the only limit on prior misconduct of a deceased in where self-defence has been raised.[4] Similarly, evidence of a third-party's tendency for violence is admissible where it is probative to a trial issue.[5]

Violence and Aggression

Scopeletti evidence of aggression or violence will include evidence of intimidation.[6]

Criminal Record

The accused is generally permitted to introduce evidence of the deceased's victim's prior record as well as transcripts of a related proceedings to establish a propensity for violence.[7]

Awareness of Reputation

The victim's tenancy to violence or intimidation does not necessarily have to be known by the accused.[8]

Prejudice of Scopeletti Evidence

The judge must be careful that Scopeletti evidence is not overly prejudicial by raising "feelings of hostility against the deceased" and prevent misuse.[9]

Concerns for misuse of this evidence can often be addressed by a careful jury instruction.[10]

  1. ↑ R v Scopelliti, 1981 CanLII 1787 (ON CA), (1981), 63 CCC (2d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), per Martin JA
  2. ↑ Scopeletti, ibid.
  3. ↑ R v Dolph, 2003 MBQB 294 (CanLII), per Oliphant ACJ, at para 14
  4. ↑ R v Watson, 1996 CanLII 4008 (ON CA), (1996), 108 CCC (3d) 310 (Ont. C.A.), per Doherty JA
    R v Hamilton, 2003 BCCA 490 (CanLII), [2003] BCJ No. 2114, per Rowles JA ("While character evidence relating to an accused is generally excluded on policy grounds, no policy rule excludes relevant evidence of the bad character of the deceased.")
  5. ↑ Scopelliti, supra
  6. ↑ R v Hines, [2001] OJ No 1112(*no CanLII links) , at para 54
  7. ↑ R v Patterson, 2006 CanLII 2609 (ON CA), per LaForme JA
  8. ↑ Scopelliti, supra
  9. ↑ R v Yaeck, 1991 CanLII 2732 (ON CA), per Osborne JA - scopeletti evidence rejected
  10. ↑ Dolph, supra, at para 18
    R v Varga, 2001 CanLII 8610 (ON CA), (2001), 159 CCC (3d) 502, per Doherty JA, at para 42

Homicide

In homicides where a self-defence argument has been raised, the accused may adduce evidence of the victim's reputation for violence in order to show that the victim was likely the aggressor and may have attacked the accused first.[1] It may also be led where the accused knew of the victim's reputation for violence which was well founded and so the accused would have acted reasonably.[2]

Before the evidence can be considered, the character evidence "must be capable of establishing animus or motive".[3] In a homicide where the defence advances evidence of the deceased's propensity for violence, this will not necessarily entitle the Crown to adduce evidence of the accused's propensity for violence by way of his criminal record.[4]

In domestic homicides, bad character evidence may be admitted to "show the nature of the relationship between the principals, or animus or motive on the part of the accused. This evidence is relevant to prove the identity of the victim or deceased’s killer and the state of mind that accompanied the unlawful killing".[5]

  1. ↑ R v Scopelliti, 1981 CanLII 1787 (ON CA), per Martin JA (evidence of violence was limited to “the probability of the deceased having been the aggressor and to support the accused’s evidence that he was attacked by the deceased”)
  2. ↑ R v Doherty, 1984 ABCA 199 (CanLII), per McGillivray JA
  3. ↑ R v Stubbs, 2013 ONCA 514 (CanLII), per Watt JA, at para 57
  4. ↑ R v Neville, 2013 CanLII 9086 (NL SCTD), per Thompson J
  5. ↑ Stubbs, supra, at para 57
    R v Moo, 2009 ONCA 645 (CanLII), per Watt JA, at para 98
    R v Cudjoe, 2009 ONCA 543 (CanLII), per Watt JA, at para 64

See Also

Retrieved from "https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Character_of_Non-Accused_Persons&oldid=58237"