Watt's Manual of Criminal Evidence 2019 is the single, reliable resource you can turn to for the answers to evidentiary questions.
Authored and annotated by a renowned criminal law authority, Watt's Manual of Criminal Evidence synthesizes all the statute and common law evidence material into one easy-to-use handbook. Designed like an annotated statute, all the statutory rules of evidence are addressed, followed by case law annotations for the Canada Evidence Act and also for selected evidentiary sections of the Criminal Code, Youth Criminal Justice Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
New in this edition
New ss. 278.92-278.97 of the Criminal Code re the admissibility of records in possession of the accused that contain personal and private information of the complainant in assault trials
New ss. 320.11, 320.27-320.36 of the Code re investigative and evidentiary matters pertaining to new Part VIII.1, (Offences relating to Conveyances)
Supreme Court of Canada Cases
R. v. Brassington (SCC) – A case management judge has jurisdiction to hear the Crown’s objections to disclosure to defence counsel of information that might reveal the identity of a confidential informant.
R. v. Calnen (SCC) – Evidence of post-offence conduct, being highly context- and fact-specific, it is for the trier of fact to determine which inferences to draw – based on logic, common sense and experience – and the weight to assign to those inferences.
R. v. G.T.D. (SCC) – The question “Do you wish to say anything?”, posed after the standard cautions have been read and after the accused has already invoked the right to speak to counsel, constitutes a violation of the police duty to “hold off” that renders any statement made thereafter subject to exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
R. v. Gubbins (SCC) – To determine whether the Stinchcombe first party regime applies, as opposed to the O’Connor third party regime, the court must be satisfied that either (a) the information sought is in the possession or control of the prosecuting Crown, or (b) the nature of the information is such that the police or another Crown entity should have supplied it to the prosecuting Crown, as “fruits of the investigation” or as “obviously relevant” information.
Court of Appeal Cases
R. v. Chahal (ABCA) – A child who alleges a sexual assault does not fit into the category of witnesses warranting special scrutiny of his or her character – a Vetrovec caution should not be used to undermine Parliament’s intention to abolish the requirement for corroboration of sexual offences.
R. v. Cote (ONCA) – The complainant’s peaceful disposition is relevant where the accused aims to rely on self-defence.
R. v. Ector (SKCA) – The police’s obligations regarding the exercise of a detainee’s s. 10(b) Charter rights includes facilitating the reasonable opportunity to contact his or her counsel of choice.
Fredericks v. R. (NBCA) – The threshold reliability analysis in the principled exception to the hearsay rule involves three steps: (1) Identifying the material aspect of the statements tendered for its truth; (2) Identifying the specific hearsay dangers raised by these material aspects; and (3) applying the procedural and substantive indicators of reliability to determine whether the hearsay dangers have been overcome.
R. v. Lambert (NLCA) – In order for a statement made to a police officer to be voluntary, the accused must have known what he or she was saying; must have known it was being said to a police officer; and must have known that the officer could use the statement to the accused’s detriment.
R. v. Larue (YKCA) – To assist in the threshold reliability determination of a hearsay statement, corrorborative evidence must show that the only likely explanation for the statement is the truthfulness or accuracy of its material aspects, when the statement is considered as a whole and in the circumstances.
R. v. Podolski (BCCA) – The extent of cautionary language used in instructing the jury on how to assess the reliability of a witness’ evidence, absent the need for a Vetrovec caution, lies within the discretion of the trial judge.
R. v. Roberts (ONCA) – Breaches of s. 10(a) of the Charter may involve one or both of two components – first, a temporal breach occurs where the detainee is not informed promptly of the reasons for the detention; and, second, an information breach occurs where the reasons for the detention were not adequately communicated to the detainee.
R. v. Vassel (ONCA) – In cases involving eyewitness identification, the trial judge may be required to instruct the jury that the mere fact the accused fits the general description of the perpetrator does not, alone, permit the jury to identify the accused as the perpetrator.
ProView eBook version is available through your web browser, or can be downloaded to your computer, tablet, or smartphone. See all available titles