2 total
Prior inconsistent statement of a recanting witness is substantively admissible if strikingly similar to accused's confession.
The accused was convicted of incest and sexual touching after confessing to police.
The complainant, his daughter, also gave a statement to police detailing the abuse, but recanted at trial.
The accused also recanted his confession at trial.
The trial judge instructed the jury that they could compare the similarities between the two statements.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the complainant's prior inconsistent statement was substantively admissible for the truth of its contents because the striking similarities between her statement and the accused's confession provided the necessary threshold of reliability under the principled approach to hearsay.
Appeal dismissed; excessive force defeats self-defence entirely and intoxication is irrelevant to objective reasonable apprehension.
The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after fatally stabbing his paramour during an altercation where both were intoxicated.
He appealed on the grounds that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury that excessive force in self-defence should lead to a manslaughter verdict, inadequately charged on provocation, and failed to relate intoxication to self-defence.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that excessive force defeats self-defence entirely, the provocation charge was adequate, and intoxication is irrelevant to the objective standard of reasonable apprehension required for self-defence under section 34(2) of the Criminal Code.
