3 total
Evidentiary motion deciding the admissibility of prior discreditable conduct in a fatal fire prosecution.
The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct in a trial concerning a fatal fire.
The proposed evidence included the accused's history of drug dealing, controlling behaviour, and threats towards the deceased and others.
The court applied the test for prior discreditable conduct, weighing the probative value of each piece of evidence against its prejudicial effect.
The court ruled that some evidence, including certain text messages and interactions demonstrating animus and motive, was admissible, while other evidence, such as the accused's prior desire to use Molotov cocktails, was excluded as overly prejudicial.
Evidence of accused's jailhouse assault on a witness admitted as after-the-fact conduct with limitations.
The accused is charged with first degree murder and attempted murder following a firebombing that killed three people.
The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the accused's after-the-fact conduct, specifically an incident where the accused allegedly assaulted a witness in jail after calling him a 'rat'.
The court ruled the evidence admissible as circumstantial evidence relevant to identity and consciousness of guilt, but limited the Crown from introducing detailed evidence of the witness's injuries to avoid undue prejudice.
The court ruled on the admissibility of various ante-mortem hearsay statements made by the deceased in a domestic homicide trial.
The accused, Liam Stinson, is charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder.
This is a voir dire ruling on the admissibility of ante-mortem hearsay statements made by the deceased victim, Jamie Lynn Rose.
The Crown sought to admit these statements under the *res gestae* exception or the principled approach to hearsay, arguing their relevance to the deceased's state of mind, the accused's animus, motive, and identity.
The court applied the tests of necessity, reliability (procedural and substantive), and the probative value versus prejudicial effect.
Many statements were excluded due to lack of contemporaneousness, suspicious circumstances, contradictory evidence, or the declarant's motive to lie.
Other statements, particularly those made closer to the time of death and without reliability concerns, were admitted.
The court emphasized avoiding "trials within a trial" and undue prejudice from cumulative evidence.
