R. v. Guthrie, 2014 ONSC 3269
[3] Prior convictions are admitted in relation to credibility on the theory that the character of a witness, as evidenced by prior convictions, is a relevant fact in assessing the testimonial reliability of the witness.
[4] There are, however, limitations to that theory. Dickson C.J.C. went on to state that the trial judge has a discretion to exclude prejudicial evidence of previous convictions if their admission would make the trial unfair, and he adopted as useful the catalogue of factors listed by La Forest J. (in dissent) to which reference may be had in determining how this discretion is to be exercised. That catalogue of factors includes:
- the nature of the previous conviction(s);
- remoteness or proximity in time of the previous conviction(s) to the current offence;
- the similarity of the previous conviction(s) to the current charge(s); and
- fairness to the trial process.[3]
[5] In regard to fairness, both Dickson C.J.C. and La Forest J. highlighted that it would not be fair to prohibit cross-examination of the accused in regard to previous convictions if a deliberate attack had already been made by the Defence upon the credibility of a Crown witness, especially when the attack had been based on the prior criminal record of the Crown witness.[4]
[7] As a general rule, certain types of convictions are not held to be relevant to credibility. As an example, assault convictions are not considered to be relevant to credibility, nor are crimes involving drugs, or impaired driving offences. On the other hand, thefts and frauds or obstructing justice convictions are considered to be very relevant.[5] However, a criminal record – whether for crimes of dishonesty or other types of crimes – is considered to be relevant to show that the accused is someone who has demonstrated contempt for law that he is legally and morally bound to obey.[6]
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire