Ms. Malkovich

The applicants, co-accused in a first-degree murder trial, sought to admit an audio statement made by their co-accused, Joshua Barreira, for the truth of its contents.

Joshua's statement suggested that the shooter acted in a drug-induced frenzy without the prior knowledge or intent of the other accused, potentially exonerating some and reducing the shooter's liability.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, requiring necessity and reliability, and considered a relaxed standard of admissibility for defence evidence to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Finding necessity met due to Joshua's election not to testify, and sufficient indicia of reliability under a relaxed standard, the court ruled that Joshua's audio statement was admissible for the truth of its contents on behalf of the applicants.

The accused, Louis Rebelo, brought a motion for a directed verdict on a charge of first degree murder.

The Crown alleged that the accused aided and abetted the shooter by arranging for the weapon to be brought to the scene and distracting the victim.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict, assessing whether there was any evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could return a verdict of guilty.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including surveillance videos, phone records, and post-offence conduct, could reasonably support an inference of guilt.

The motion for a directed verdict was dismissed.

This mid-trial ruling addresses Corbett applications by three accused (Brandon Barreira, Chad Davidson, and Joshua Barreira) in a first-degree murder trial.

Brandon and Chad sought to exclude their criminal convictions from cross-examination, while Joshua sought reconsideration of a previous ruling regarding his convictions.

The court applied the Corbett factors, balancing the probative value of the records against their prejudicial effect.

For Brandon and Chad, their youth records were excluded due to their age, similarity to adult convictions, and the policy objectives of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

However, their adult criminal records were deemed admissible due to a continuous pattern of criminal conduct relevant to credibility.

Joshua's request to edit specific convictions (possession of firearm/ammunition contrary to prohibition order and counsel to commit murder) was denied, as the court found the full description relevant to his credibility and not overly prejudicial given the trial context.

During a joint trial for first degree murder, one of the accused brought two evidentiary applications.

The first application sought to exclude evidence of his spouse's conviction for accessory after the fact to murder, arguing it lacked probative value and was highly prejudicial.

The court granted this application, finding the conviction's probative value regarding the spouse's credibility was substantially outweighed by the overwhelming prejudice it would cause to a co-accused.

The second application was a Corbett application to exclude the accused's prior criminal record from cross-examination if he chose to testify.

The court partially granted this application, excluding the accused's youth record and one adult firearms conviction to prevent undue prejudice, but permitting cross-examination on the remainder of his extensive adult record as it demonstrated a continuing disregard for the law relevant to his credibility.

This corrigendum clarifies a mid-trial ruling regarding the admissibility of a composite video.

It corrects the reference to Mr. Michael Plaxton, a certified forensic video analyst, from 'Officer Plaxton' to 'Mr. Plaxton', noting that he is a civilian despite potentially being a peace officer.

This change does not alter the substance of the original ruling.

In a first-degree murder trial involving multiple co-accused, Joshua Barreira applied for remedies to address alleged procedural unfairness arising from the alphabetical order of names on the indictment.

He sought rights to re-cross-examine witnesses, an alternating order of cross-examination with co-accused Chad Davidson, and changes to the order of leading evidence and jury addresses.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the tactical disadvantages were inherent in the adversarial process and did not meet the high threshold for fundamental unfairness.

The court also determined that re-cross-examination was not warranted as the matters raised were foreseeable.

This ruling addresses a defence application to edit three statements made by accused Joshua Barreira, which were previously ruled admissible in his first-degree murder trial.

The court considered principles of post-offence conduct, the right to silence, and the probative value versus prejudicial effect of various parts of the statements.

The judge ordered specific redactions from Statement #1 and Statement #2, including references to past criminal activity, irrelevant personal comments, and discussions about police taking information to the Crown for a potential deal.

The court also ruled that Joshua's willingness to undergo a polygraph test was admissible, given the parties' agreement and the lack of substantial prejudicial effect.

The defence applied to exclude evidence of the accuseds' spouses' convictions for accessory after the fact to murder and evidence of the accuseds' joint marriages, and to prevent adverse inferences from the marriages.

The court ruled that the spouses' convictions were admissible for credibility purposes with a strong jury caution, as their probative value outweighed prejudicial effect.

The court also found the events leading to and details of the joint marriages admissible to show relationships and rebut innocent association, but prohibited the Crown from arguing an adverse inference of consciousness of guilt from the marriages themselves, citing spousal privilege and lack of clear evidence on the purpose of marriage.

This pre-trial motion addressed the Crown's application to introduce evidence of prior discreditable conduct against the accused, Joshua Barreira and Chad Davidson, in a first-degree murder trial.

The court applied the R. v. Handy framework, balancing the probative value against the prejudicial effect of each piece of evidence.

For Joshua Barreira, evidence of his suspended driver's license, drug trafficking proximate to the murder, criminal associations with co-accused, and dreams about the deceased was admitted as part of the narrative or to rebut innocent association.

However, evidence of his general marijuana use, past drug financing, owning a 'crack house,' prior jail records with Davidson, and specific past convictions for firearms and counsel to commit murder were deemed inadmissible due to higher prejudicial effect or lack of probative value.

For Chad Davidson, evidence of his criminal associations with the Barreira family, admissions to Marta Leite regarding the murder, and specific photos for identification purposes were admitted.

Conversely, allegations of a past home invasion, certain tattoo evidence (handguns, 'NMIF'), an uncontextualized admission to a fellow inmate, and his armed robbery conviction were excluded.

The court emphasized the importance of narrative evidence and rebutting innocent association while strictly scrutinizing evidence for propensity.

The Crown sought to admit identification evidence from two witnesses to identify Chad Davidson as the shooter on surveillance video in a first-degree murder trial.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of this lay opinion evidence under the Leaney/Brown "prior acquaintance/better position" test.

The court found that both witnesses had sufficient familiarity with Davidson and an articulable basis for their identification, primarily based on his mannerisms and walk, in addition to clothing.

The court also ruled that a concession made by defence counsel at the preliminary hearing regarding committal had no probative value at trial.

The identification evidence was deemed admissible.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought pre-trial applications to sit at counsel table, to have leg shackles removed, and to have hot meals provided by counsel during the trial.

The court dismissed the application to sit at counsel table, finding that security concerns regarding two of the accused necessitated their placement in the dock, and that treating the co-accused differently could cause prejudice.

The court ordered that the accused wear minimally intrusive leg belt restraints rather than handcuffs or leg irons.

The request for hot meals provided by counsel was denied due to security concerns, but the court ordered the custodial authorities to provide two sandwiches and a beverage for lunch.