Category: articles

Character evidence for the accused can be challenged by the prosecution. Once placed in issue at trial it opens the door for the prosecution to respond with evidence of bad character. If the Crown responds with evidence of bad character, it is admissible solely to rebut the evidence of good character and is only admissible if the accused first puts his character in issue.
Continue reading “Character Evidence (part 3)”

Good character evidence must be “general” in nature. It should also relate to a specific aspect of the case.
For example, where the accused is charged with a violent crime, his general reputation in the community as a non-violent individual is particularly relevant.

Continue reading “Character Evidence (part 2)”

The accused is entitled to produce evidence of his good character. If the Judge or jury determines that the accused is of good character, it may influence their decision in concluding that the accused is not guilty of the crime. Character evidence, however, is not, standing alone, a defence to any criminal charge. It has other value. The good character of an accused may strengthen the credibility of the accused. Good character may support the unlikeliness that the accused would commit the offence charged. In a jury trial the Judge is obligated to instruct the jury that evidence of good character may be used to show that the accused is not the type of person likely to have committed the offence alleged.
Continue reading “Character Evidence”

The accused has a right to understand the evidence provided at trial. In Canada criminal trials take place in English, French, or sometimes in both languages. An accused is entitled to ask for a trial in either of our country’s official languages. It is the choice of the accused. In fact, the court is obligated to inform the accused of his right to choose the language of his trial. The Judge presiding over an accused’s trial cannot force a witness to speak in the language chosen by the accused. Although it does not happen often, if the accused refuses to indicate his choice of language, the Judge will order the trial to take place in the language that the accused seems to understand the best.
The presiding Judge makes this decision based on the principle that an accused is entitled to a fair trial. Any witness called at the trial by either the prosecution or the defence is entitled to testify in a language that is not the language of the accused. If this occurs the accused is entitled to have the assistance of an interpreter to permit the accused to understand the testimony provided in a foreign language. If an interpreter is required to assist the accused in understanding the evidence, the interpreter will be provided at the government’s expense.

Continue reading “Translators Available”

Before the commencement of a trial the accused and his lawyer have a legal right to know all the evidence that the prosecutor has against him. The prosecution is obligated to provide all relevant information including evidence in their possession because of the investigation that is helpful to the accused in his defence. This information is disclosed to counsel for the accused. Crown disclosure will include the names of all witnesses that will testify or could testify. Crown disclosure will contain the statements of all witnesses interviewed by the police, the Crown, or both.
Continue reading “The Crown’s Responsibility to Provide Disclosure”

The accused can never be forced to testify at his trial. Because a person in Canada accused of a crime is presumed innocent until a Judge or jury finds him guilty, the presumption of innocence prevents anyone from forcing the accused to formally answer the charge(s). The accused does not have to prove his innocence. The Crown must prove the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Continue reading “The Accused as Witness”

Some witnesses may testify about matters that they did not personally see or hear. Yet, certain inferences may be drawn from their testimony. This is referred to as circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence can sometimes be as compelling as direct evidence. Every Judge in Canada seems to use the same example of circumstantial evidence when explaining it to a jury. Perhaps it has been used so often because Judges feel that it is practical and works when explaining the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. Here is how most Judges explain circumstantial evidence to jurors:
A witness might say that he or she observed a woman enter the courthouse lobby today wearing a raincoat and carrying an umbrella; both dripping wet. If you believe that witness, you might conclude that it was raining outside at the time the woman entered the courthouse, even though the evidence suggesting that it was raining at the time was indirect. The witness was not outside and did not personally observe it raining. But the witness did see the raincoat of the woman who entered the courthouse at that time, and, her umbrella dripping water, and, from those observations, the witness might infer that it was likely raining at the time that woman entered the courthouse. Indirect evidence is circumstantial evidence. Sometimes circumstantial evidence can be just as compelling as direct evidence.
Continue reading “Circumstantial Evidence”

Direct evidence is evidence presented by a witness that, if believed, establishes a fact in issue. With direct evidence the only decision involved is to determine if the witness is telling the truth and describing the event that she witnessed accurately. Direct evidence has an advantage over circumstantial evidence. If the Crown’s case is entirely or substantially based on circumstantial evidence, the Judge or jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the guilt of the accused is the only rational conclusion or inference that can be drawn from circumstantial evidence.

Continue reading “Direct Evidence”

In a criminal trial both types of evidence, direct or circumstantial, are admissible. In fact, our Judges instruct juries that one type of evidence is not to be considered “better” than another. The law treats both equally. The difference is that circumstantial evidence requires the trier of fact to conclude that the inference(s) they are urged to find on the evidence is/are the only rational inferences based upon what the witness observed, and, to also conclude that what the witness claims to have observed is accepted as accurate and truthful.
Continue reading “Direct versus Circumstantial Evidence”

There are other factors that the Judge or jury may be asked to consider in determining intention. They may also be asked to consider possible motives for a person’s actions. Motive is distinguishable from intent. Intent refers to the necessary mental element of guilt. A crime requires criminal intention to be proved. It is the mens rea, or the criminal intent, that the Crown must prove to establish guilt. Motive relates to a possible reason for a person’s actions.
Continue reading “Intention versus Motive”