R. v. Paterson, 1998 CanLII 14969 (BC CA)
[113] The relevancy rule applies with force to documentary
evidence. In McWilliams, Canadian Criminal Evidence (3d ed.)
at 6-9, the learned author wrote:
As Humphries, J., said in R. v. Treacy (1944),
30 Cr. App. R. 93, at p. 96: "It is a complete
mistake to think that a document ... can be made
admissible simply because it is put to an accused
person in cross-examination". See Chapter 30 and
Forsythe v. The King (1943), 1943 CanLII 62 (SCC), 79 C.C.C. 129 (S.C.C.)
at pp. 131-2; R. v. Scory (1944), 1944 CanLII 220 (SK CA), 83 C.C.C. 306
(Sask. C.A.).
Nor does the fact that the defence has referred
to an otherwise inadmissible document permit the
prosecution to tender it: Forsythe v. The King,
supra; Deacon v. The King (1947), 1947 CanLII 38 (SCC), 89 C.C.C. 1
(S.C.C.); R. v. Taylor (1970), 1970 CanLII 1053 (MB CA), 1 C.C.C. (2d) 321
(Man. C.A.) at p. 331. While a witness may be cross-
examined as to a document without its being shown to
him (Wrottesley, pp. 62-3) and it may be put to an
accused in cross-examination without proof thereof,
it should not be put in as an exhibit or its contents
disclosed to the jury. It should simply be shown to
the accused so that he can read it and then he should
be asked whether or not he adheres to his answer: R.
v. Yousry (1914), 11 Cr. App. R. 13.
[Emphasis added.]
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire