Leah Gensey

The accused were jointly charged with first-degree murder.

During pre-charge conferences, the Crown and defence counsel raised several issues regarding the jury instructions.

The court declined the Crown's request to leave section 21(2) of the Criminal Code and unlawful confinement under section 231(5)(e) as routes to liability, finding insufficient evidence to support those theories.

The court also dismissed defence requests to remove planning and deliberation or section 229(a)(ii) intent from the charge for one of the accused, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence for the jury to consider.

Further defence requests for a specific identification instruction and modifications to the summary of eyewitness testimony were also dismissed.

During a first degree murder trial, the Crown sought to introduce evidence that the accused had been in custody for two years prior to the murder.

The Crown argued this evidence was necessary to prove the accused did not have access to a cell phone during that time, thereby refuting a potential defence claim that the accused was a contact in the deceased's phone.

The defence offered to admit the accused was 'out of the area' without cell phone access for two months.

The court held that the extended two-year period of non-access was irrelevant.

Furthermore, the court ruled that even if relevant, the prejudicial effect of revealing the accused's prior incarceration to the jury outweighed its probative value, and prohibited the Crown from leading the evidence.

During a jury trial, the Crown sought to file a DNA expert's written report as an exhibit after the expert had already provided viva voce evidence.

The defence objected, arguing the report was prejudicial.

The court dismissed the Crown's request, ruling that the report was inadmissible because it added nothing to the oral testimony, contained matters not explored in evidence, and risked misleading or confusing the jury.

The court emphasized that the expert's evidence is their testimony, not their report.

In a murder trial, the Crown applied to exclude references to the name 'CJ' from the deceased's phone records, arguing the evidence was irrelevant and hearsay.

A co-accused also sought to redact text messages involving 'Scarface' on similar grounds.

The court dismissed the applications, finding the evidence relevant to the live issue of DNA transfer and identification.

The court held that the admission of the contact list and text messages engaged issues of authentication rather than hearsay, as they were not being adduced for the truth of their contents but to determine whether the communications were actually made by the accused.

During a criminal trial for a shooting death, the court issued written reasons for several oral evidentiary rulings.

The court ruled that the defence could not elicit self-serving admissions from a Crown witness during cross-examination.

The court allowed two photographs to be entered as numbered exhibits, finding them relevant and authenticated.

The court permitted the Crown to re-examine a witness regarding phone numbers to clarify answers given in cross-examination, but denied re-examination on the circumstances of an identification, finding it more prejudicial than probative.

Finally, the court prohibited the defence from introducing investigative hearsay about a third-party suspect without a proper voir dire.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, sought to exclude cell phone numbers they had provided to their probation officers, which were subsequently disclosed to the police.

The accused argued the disclosure violated their rights under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter, and that the statements were not voluntary.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the probation officers were not persons in authority at the time the numbers were provided.

Furthermore, the court held there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in phone numbers, and the disclosure was lawfully permitted under the Ministry of Correctional Services Act.

The court also found no evidence that the accused were compelled to provide the numbers in violation of section 7.

The phone numbers were ruled admissible.

The accused were on trial for first degree murder.

During the trial, the defence filed a section 24(1) Charter application alleging a breach due to the Centre of Forensic Sciences consuming a 'negative control' sample during DNA testing.

The Crown sought directions, arguing the court should determine the relevancy of the consumed sample before the Crown's DNA expert testified, and restrict cross-examination if relevance was not established.

The court dismissed the Crown's request, holding that the defence was entitled to cross-examine the expert on the DNA extraction process, including the use and consumption of the negative control.

The court deferred ruling on the Charter application until the end of the trial, when the full evidentiary record would allow for a proper assessment of prejudice.

During a criminal trial, the Crown sought to adduce opinion evidence from a police officer that clothing worn by a male in a surveillance video resembled clothing she had previously observed the accused wearing.

The defence objected, arguing the officer was in no better position than the jury to make this comparison.

The trial judge reconsidered and reversed an earlier ruling, holding that the officer's opinion was not helpful to the trier of fact and was more prejudicial than probative.

The jury, equipped with the video as real evidence, could make the comparison themselves without the officer's narration or opinion.

During a criminal trial, the Crown sought leave to communicate with its witness, a cell phone security analyst, while she was still under cross-examination.

The defence had pointed out a geographical and temporal discrepancy in the cell phone records, and the Crown wished to direct the witness to investigate the discrepancy.

The court granted leave, noting that the witness was providing factual evidence about the operation of the network and that investigating the discrepancy would prevent further delay.

During a first-degree murder trial, the Crown sought to admit portions of a witness's prior police statement as past recollection recorded due to the witness's professed memory loss.

The defence initially agreed to admit certain excerpts but later objected to the Crown tendering subsequent portions of the statement.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that all relevant parts of the statement met the four essential conditions for admissibility as past recollection recorded and that fairness to the Crown required presenting a complete and non-misleading picture to the jury.

This endorsement addresses procedural issues during a joint criminal trial for murder, specifically concerning the illness of lead defence counsel for one of the accused.

The court considered whether to continue with a critical Crown witness in counsel's absence and the appropriate duration to delay proceedings.

The court deferred the critical witness's evidence and directed the Crown to call other witnesses, emphasizing the accused's right to full answer and defence and the importance of lead counsel's presence for cross-examination of critical witnesses.

The court deemed discussions of severance premature, pending further medical information on counsel's return.

During a murder trial, the defense requested a voir dire regarding an in-dock identification made by a witness, Margaret Warner, to Cst.

Melo, and a potential breach of a witness exclusion order.

The court declined to continue the inquiry into the in-dock identification, finding it lacked probative value and was highly prejudicial, thus excluding it from trial.

The court also found no breach of the witness exclusion order by Cst.

Melo but modified the order to remove Cst.

Melo's exemption due to concerns about witness contact regarding identification.

This endorsement addresses two evidentiary issues during a first-degree murder trial: the admissibility of composite sketches and the proper conduct of examination-in-chief of a critical Crown witness.

The court ruled the composite sketches inadmissible due to low probative value, misleading potential, and prejudicial effect, and prohibited their use by both the Crown and co-accused.

Regarding the examination-in-chief, the court found the Crown's questions were not leading or a disguised impeachment, but cautioned against overly broad questions that merely ask if video evidence matches recollection.

This endorsement addresses the admissibility of identification evidence from a lay witness, Margaret Warner, during a first-degree murder trial.

The accused sought to prohibit the Crown from leading evidence where Ms. Warner identified individuals in surveillance video as the same individuals she observed at the scene of the shooting.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Ms. Warner's observations, even if considered opinion, were admissible as lay opinion evidence due to her unique position to assist the trier of fact through personal observation.

The court also rejected the argument that the evidence constituted an inadmissible 'in-dock identification', noting that Ms. Warner was not identifying the accused but rather comparing individuals in the video to those she observed at the scene.

Deficiencies in the evidence were deemed suitable for cross-examination and potential limiting instructions to the jury.

During a murder trial, the Crown sought to admit a photograph of the deceased, Dwayne Thompson, taken at the coroner's office, through Sgt. Raymond Linton, who was not present at the autopsy.

The accused objected, arguing the Crown reneged on an agreement not to introduce autopsy photographs through Sgt. Linton and that the photograph was prejudicial.

The court ruled the photograph admissible, clarifying it was not an "autopsy photograph" in the agreed-upon sense, and that its probative value, particularly in authenticating paper bags placed on the deceased's hands at the scene, outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The court also issued directives for future disclosure of electronic evidence to prevent similar misunderstandings.

The Crown sought to admit a modified summary of cellphone records, replacing phone numbers with the names of the accused, to simplify evidence for the jury.

The accused objected, arguing identity and phone number association were disputed, making the summary prejudicial.

The court ruled that while summaries are generally admissible to clarify evidence, the proposed modified summary was inadmissible as evidence because replacing phone numbers with accused names on a disputed issue of identity would be unfairly prejudicial and amount to impermissible advocacy, potentially misleading the jury.

The Crown could use the summary as an aid in closing arguments but not as evidence.

This endorsement addresses several pre-trial procedural issues in a first-degree murder trial involving three accused.

The court provides directions on the order of peremptory challenges, the procedure for challenging jurors for cause, disclosure of electronic records and aids (Excel spreadsheets, PowerPoints, maps), and the examination of a key witness, Cassandra Hudson.

The court also sets out non-sitting dates and addresses miscellaneous requests regarding nourishment and clothing exchanges for the accused.

Key rulings include declining to prohibit Crown counsel from preparing a witness and denying a request to videotape witness testimony for discovery purposes.