Terry Waltenbury

The Crown applied to introduce evidence of the accused's discreditable conduct, specifically images from a tablet and Instagram posts, at his jury trial for charges including procuring, recruiting, and exploiting D.M. for sexual services, sexual assault, and possession.

The court considered the admissibility of this evidence, applying the legal principles regarding extrinsic misconduct and balancing probative value against prejudicial effect.

The court found that most of the evidence, including images of money and posts associating prostitution with financial gain and violence, was relevant to the accused's state of mind, motivation, and intent regarding the pimping charges, and corroborated the complainant's account.

The court dismissed the argument that humorous intent negated probative value and ruled that the probative value outweighed the prejudice, which could be mitigated by jury instructions.

The Crown applied to introduce expert opinion evidence and discreditable conduct evidence at the accused's trial for human trafficking and prostitution-related offences.

The court admitted the expert evidence of a police detective regarding the prostitution subculture, finding it necessary to assist the jury in understanding the complainant's behaviour.

However, the court excluded evidence of the accused's prior convictions for similar offences, finding the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value due to a lack of distinctive similarities.

The court delivered a mixed ruling on the admissibility of various pictures and social media posts found on the accused's devices, admitting those directly relevant to the charges while excluding those that merely suggested a bad character.

A 13-year-old accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual touching for a sexual purpose, and invitation to sexual touching of a seven-year-old girl during a family visit in November 2011.

The Crown alleged the accused took advantage of an unsupervised moment to sexually assault the complainant.

The accused denied the allegations, suggesting they may have been imagined.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault based on credible evidence from the complainant and her mother.

The court stayed the remaining counts as they were subsumed within the sexual assault conviction under the Kienapple principle, which prohibits multiple convictions for the same delict absent clear parliamentary intention.