R v Dayes – 2013 ONCA 614 (LaForme): [29] I would reject the appellant’s submission because, in my view, it was open to the Crown to cross-examine T.M. under s. 9(2) of the CEA about why his testimony at the trial was inconsistent with his testimony at S.R.’s trial. Such questioning relates to the inconsistent statement and is therefore within Read more...
R v. L.O. [2015] O.J. No. 2956 (CA – Doherty): [34] L.F.’s prior consistent statements were also relevant to the jury’s assessment of the reliability of her evidence in a second, less direct way. Consistencies in her statements provided important context to assess the defence attack on L.F.’s reliability based on alleged inconsistencies. [35] The trial judge correctly told the Read more...
R v Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33 (Cromwell): [35] At one time, it was said that in circumstantial cases, “conclusions alternative to the guilt of the accused must be rational conclusions based on inferences drawn from proven facts” see R. v. McIver, [1965] 2 O.R. 475, at p. 479 (C.A.), aff’d without discussion of this point [1966] S.C.R. 254. However, that Read more...
R v Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33 (Cromwell): [37] When assessing circumstantial evidence, the trier of fact should consider “other plausible theor[ies]” and “other reasonable possibilities” which are inconsistent with guilt: R. v. Comba, [1938] O.R. 200 (C.A.), at pp. 205 and 211, per Middleton J.A., aff’d [1938] S.C.R. 396; R. v. Baigent, 2013 BCCA 28, 335 B.C.A.C. 11, at para. Read more...
R v. L.S., 2017 ONCA 685, 2017 OJ No. 4586 (OCA – Doherty): [66] The integrity of the trial process is also protected by insisting that the proposed evidence of other sexual activity be clearly described. Evidence of other sexual activity runs the real risk of derailing a trial by turning it into an inquiry about the complainant’s sexual character Read more...