1 total
Equivocal hearsay party admission was admissible where context gave it non-speculative meaning.
The Crown appealed after the British Columbia Court of Appeal set aside a second degree murder conviction, holding that hearsay testimony from the accused's brother regarding an overheard phone call in which the accused admitted to killing the victim was inadmissible.
The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the brother's testimony as a party admission: the evidence was capable of non-speculative meaning and thus relevant, it fell within the party admission exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule, and the trial judge did not err in the discretionary balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect.
The Court also held there was no error in the trial judge's answer to the jury's mid-deliberation question regarding the definition of bodily harm.
The dissenters agreed with the majority's analytical framework but concluded that, on the facts, assessing the relevance of the overheard statements was an exercise in pure speculation and the evidence should not have been admitted.
