2 total
The court admitted expert evidence on street gangs but excluded gang rap videos after the accused admitted gang membership.
This pre-trial application addressed the admissibility of expert testimony on urban street gangs, evidence of prior violent incidents, and YouTube videos in a murder trial.
The Crown sought to introduce this evidence to establish motive related to inter-gang rivalry.
The court applied the Mohan criteria and a cost/benefit analysis, ruling that expert evidence on general gang phenomena and specific incidents was admissible, but with limitations on ultimate issues and hearsay.
Initially, some videos were admitted, but this ruling was reversed after the accused made admissions regarding gang existence and membership, as the videos' probative value was then outweighed by their prejudice.
A subsequent application by the Crown to re-admit videos during cross-examination of an accused was also refused, upholding the principle against compelling an accused to put character in issue.
The court permitted an expert to interpret intercepted gang communications directly, based on counsel's uniform consent.
The Crown sought to admit expert testimony on urban street gang slang to interpret intercepted communications in a murder trial.
While the defence conceded the general admissibility criteria, the judge raised concerns about the expert opining on the precise meaning of communications, which could trench on the ultimate issue.
Despite conflicting authorities, the judge permitted the expert to interpret the communications directly, as all counsel uniformly preferred this approach over hypotheticals.