Les limites que doit respecter une partie quand elle désire présenter son témoin sous son meilleur jour

R. c. Rodriguez-Farinas, 2022 QCCS 2240

Lien vers la décision

[46]         La Cour d’appel de l’Alberta a souligné qu’une partie peut, d’une manière introductive, présenter son témoin sous son meilleur jour[6]; l’équité commandait cependant que celui-ci ne le soit pas avec un lustre inapproprié[7].

 

[47]         De cet exemple et d’autres, les auteurs discutent des limites de la règle[8]. Je reproduis ci-après trois extraits qui décrivent fort utilement celle-ci et qui affectent la discussion en l’espèce :

 

•         “In general, a party is not entitled to call evidence whose sole purpose is to bolster the character or credibility of its own witness until the other side has attempted to impeach it”[9];

 

•         “The rule against oath helping operates to exclude only evidence that is extraneous to the allegations being tried. […] [T] he rule is engaged when the sole or principal thrust of the evidence goes to the witness’s character or credibility rather than the substance of the issues in dispute”[10];

 

•         “The law distinguishes between improper bolstering of one’s own witness and pre-emptive efforts to address an anticipated challenge from the other side. Within limits, the latter is permissible. For instance, it is permissible for the Crown to elicit its own witness’s criminal record in chief, thereby blunting the force of an anticipated defence attack. Defence counsel can do the same for the accused. Although this might “steal the thunder” of opposing counsel, there is nothing wrong with presenting a warts-and-all picture of one’s own witness. However, the rule against oath helping is breached when the Crown goes on to elicit evidence about the rehabilitation and subsequent good behaviour of its putatively unsavoury witness. This kind of evidence is seen as an improper thumb on the evidentiary scales”[11].