During a criminal jury trial for extortion, robbery, and death threats, the Crown sought to re‑examine the complainant about her understanding of one accused’s reputation to explain her delayed report to police.
Defence objected, arguing the evidence constituted inadmissible character evidence with prejudicial impact.
The court held that the proposed testimony was admissible not to prove the truth of the accused’s alleged reputation, but to establish the complainant’s state of mind and rebut defence suggestions that the allegations were fabricated due to delayed reporting.
Applying the balancing approach to discreditable conduct evidence, the court found the probative value in addressing credibility outweighed the potential prejudice.
The Crown was therefore permitted to ask the proposed questions with a limiting jury instruction.