The defence sought to admit expert psychiatric evidence from Dr. Julian Gojer on dissociative amnesia to explain the accused's memory loss regarding the number of stabbings, arguing it was relevant to credibility and intent in a second-degree murder trial.
The Crown opposed, arguing the evidence was unnecessary, inadmissible, confusing, and lacked probative value, especially since Dr. Gojer could not conclusively state the accused experienced dissociation or link it to intent.
The court, applying the Mohan and White Burgess tests for expert evidence admissibility, found that the evidence had limited probative value and was not necessary to assist the jury, as the issue of memory loss for the number of stabs was within the jury's common sense.
The court concluded that the prejudicial effect of the evidence, including potential confusion and disproportionate weight, substantially outweighed its probative value.
The application to admit the expert opinion was dismissed.
