+

Rules & Typesof Evidence

+Rules of Evidence

During a trial, either the Crown or the defence may object to questions asked by the opposing attorney or to answers provided by witnesses.

The judge will rule on an objection on whether the evidence in question is admissible – if it can be accepted in court.

+Leading Questions

Suggests to the witness a particular answer.

Can only ask a witness a leading question if it involves unobjectionable matters (You are 21, aren’t you?).

In a cross-examination, counsel can ask a leading question if it pertains to previous testimony – “You want this court to believe that you saw Tom stabbing Al?” Question refers to a fact that was already established.

An example of a questions that cannot be asked: “Wasn’t it Tom you saw holding the knife and stabbing Al?” Would need to be rephrased – “What did you see Tom do to Al?”

This type of question asks for explanation of what occurred.

+Hearsay Statements

Counsel may only ask questions about what the witness saw or experienced first-hand, not about something they heard from a third party.

Not admissible in court.

An example: “Ann told me that she saw Tom stab Al with a knife”.

+Opinion Statements

Counsel may not ask a witness to give an opinion that goes beyond common knowledge about the matter unless they are a recognized expert in the field.

An eyewitness can give an opinion about the car at the crime scene but only the mechanic (the expert) who examined the vehicle can comment on mechanical aspects.

+Immaterial or Irrelevant Questions

A question that has no connection with the matter at hand.

An example of this is asking an investigating officer in a murder trial about their personal life.

These questions are inadmissible in court.

+Non-Responsive Answers

At times counsel will ask a question and a witness may not fully answer the question.

When this happens, counsel may ask the judge to direct the witness to answer the question properly.

+Types of Evidence – Direct

The testimony given by a witness to prove an alleged fact.

Most commonly an eyewitness testimony.

An example: Beatrice saw Samir assault Dawn and steal her purse.

Even direct evidence can be challenged. Counsel may say the witness (Beatrice) has poor vision and wasn’t able to properly see what occurred.

+Circumstantial Evidence

If there are no eyewitnesses.

The purse that Samir stole was found in a dumpster and his fingerprints were on it or someone saw Samir in the area around the time the incident took place. These pieces of information may allow the jury to infer that Samir robbed Dawn.

In order for circumstantial evidence to be allowed in court, the judge must be convinced that the defendant’s guilt can be drawn from the evidence.

+Character Evidence

Establishes the likelihood that the defendant is the type of person who would either or would not commit a certain offence.

Generally the Crown cannot attack the defendant’s character so that the jury does not believe that they are a “bad person” and must, therefore, be guilty.

Defence counsel, however, may introduce evidence to present the defendant as a “good person”. Once they have presented this type of evidence, they Crown can rebut it by presenting contradictory evidence.

Contradictory evidence can include prior convictions. This is not down to attack the person but to test their credibility.

+Electronic Surveillance The use of any electronic device to overhear or record

communications between two or more people

Wiretapping – Interception of telephone communications, generally at some distance away from where the conversation is occurring.

Bugging – Recording of a speaker’s oral communication by means of an electronic device that overhears, broadcasts, or records that communication. May be installed in cars, or buildings

Information from wiretapping or bugging is admissible in court only if interception is authorized by a judge. Exceptions occur when an officer believes the situation is

an emergency or to prevent a violent act.