Les facteurs à considérer dans l'appréciation d'une preuve de reconnaissance d'une voix

R. v. Saddleback, 2013 ABCA 250

Lien vers la décision

[25]     In R v Williams (1995), 1995 CanLII 695 (ON CA), 23 OR (3d) 122 at paras 13 and 14,[1995] OJ No 1012, the court summarized a number of factors to be considered with respect to voice recognition evidence:

 

(1)      Is there direct or circumstantial evidence that the speaker is in fact the appellant?

 

(2)      Are the events following the conversations in which the appellant was identified consistent with the speaker being the appellant? For instance, in the case on appeal, a meeting was arranged but the appellant never carried through with it.

 

(3)      Is there some peculiarity or distinctiveness to the appellant’s voice that would make ti more readily identifiable? Are there “internal patterns” or patterns of speech, distinctly associated with the appellant?

 

(4)      Did the speaker disclose facts known by the appellant or, more compellingly, known only to the appellant?

 

(5)      Are the “context and timing” of the conversation consistent with the theory that the speaker is the appellant? Or, on the other side of the coin, was the identity of the speaker tainted by the witness’ expectation that he would be the appellant?

 

(6)      The trial judge must advert the jury to the possibility that the speaker may have been disguising his voice.

 

(7)      The trial judge must direct the jury and impress upon the jury that unless they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the witness was not only honest and reliable, but also correct, it would be unsafe to convict and they should acquit.

 

(8)      The lack of distinctiveness in the voice identified made the evidence of identification inadmissible.