R. v. Field, 2018 BCCA 253
[23] There are at least three distinct types of identification evidence that may be tendered, each with its own reliability characteristics:
(i) Eyewitness evidence by a stranger: Experience has shown that eyewitness evidence proffered by a stranger to the accused is the least reliable identification evidence. It has been described as “inherently unreliable”: R. v. M.B., 2017 ONCA 653 at para. 29. In light of the many instances in which identification has proved erroneous, the trier of fact must be cognizant of "the inherent frailties of identification evidence arising from the psychological fact of the unreliability of human observation and recollection": R. v. Burke, 1996 CanLII 229 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474 at para. 52.
(ii) Identification by the trier of fact through photographic evidence: On occasion, the trier of fact will have the benefit of photographic evidence taken at or sufficiently near the scene of the crime to have probative value in determining the identity of the perpetrator. As long as the photographic evidence is of sufficient clarity and quality to permit identification of the person shown in the photo, the evidence can be admitted and weighed with other evidence by the trier of fact: R. v. Nikolovski, 1996 CanLII 158 (SCC), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197 at para. 23.
(iii) Recognition evidence: The Crown may also choose to tender opinion evidence from a person or persons who can identify the individual shown in a photo or video. This evidence is admissible if the witness had a prior acquaintance with the accused and is therefore in a better position than the trier of fact to conclude whether the individual in the photo is the accused: R. v. Leaney, 1989 CanLII 28 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 393; R. v. Brown (2006), 2006 CanLII 42683 (ON CA), 215 C.C.C. (3d) 330 (Ont. C.A.).
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire