R. v. B. (A.J.), 1995 CanLII 94 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 413
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant
v.
A.B. Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. B. (A.J.)
1995: May 29.
Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for newfoundland
Evidence ‑‑ Recent fabrication ‑‑ Prior consistent statements ‑‑ Sexual offences ‑‑ Accused alleging that complainant's testimony was of recent fabrication ‑‑ Testimony of social worker and doctor admissible to rebut accused's allegation of recent fabrication ‑‑ Social worker's report admitted into evidence not improperly used by trial judge ‑‑ Accused properly convicted.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal (1994), 1994 9731 (NL CA), 120 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147 (sub nom. R. v. A.J.B.), 373 A.P.R. 147, 90 C.C.C. (3d) 210, allowing the accused's appeal from his conviction for sexual offences, ordering a new trial and entering a stay of proceedings. Appeal allowed.
Wayne Gorman, for the appellant.
Jerome P. Kennedy, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1
Judgment
Lamer C.J. ‑‑ The judgment of the Court is that the appeal is allowed. The order for the new trial of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the conviction is restored. Mr. Justice Sopinka will give the reasons of the Court.
2
Reasons for Judgment
Sopinka J. ‑‑ The complainant quite properly testified as part of the narrative that she complained to the police, to a social worker and to a doctor in 1977. The complainant was cross‑examined by the respondent to the effect that she came up with the allegation after reading a book. In our view, this constituted an allegation of recent fabrication. Therefore, the evidence of the social worker and the doctor was admissible to rebut the allegation of recent fabrication. The admissibility of this evidence was limited to establish the fact that the complaints were made and not for the purpose of establishing the truth of the contents of the complaints. The trial judge expressly stated that this evidence was limited to this use.
3 With respect to the admission of the social worker's report, there is no basis to suggest that its contents, parts of which were not admissible, were improperly used by the trial judge. The trial judge, therefore, committed no error of law.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: The Department of Justice, St. John's, Newfoundland.
Solicitor for the respondent: Jerome P. Kennedy, St. John's, Newfoundland.
