The accused challenged the admissibility of evidence consisting of a name and phone number stored in a third party’s cell phone, arguing that it constituted hearsay.
The Crown sought to admit the evidence as circumstantial evidence of the state of mind of the person who recorded the contact information and its connection to events relevant to the prosecution.
The court held that the entry of a name and phone number in a cell phone constituted non-verbal conduct rather than hearsay and could be admitted for the limited purpose advanced by the Crown.
Alternatively, the evidence satisfied the principled exception to the hearsay rule due to circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness and necessity where the phone’s owner had absconded.
The issue of the ultimate reliability and weight of the evidence was left to the jury.
