Facteurs d'appréciation de la qualité de la preuve d'identification d'une voix

R. v Holtby, 2023 BCSC 1173

Lien vers la décision

[46]      In this case, Ms. Oman’s voice identification is a key element of the Crown’s case. While a non-expert may give testimony identifying a voice, several factors determine the weight that should be given to such an identification:

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?

3.   Is there some peculiarity or distinctiveness to the appellant's voice that would make it 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's expectation that he would be the appellant?

6.   Are there distinctive or distinguishing features of the voice?

7.   Did the party to the communication identify him or herself?

8.   Did the party to the communication provide information that would allow the listener to identify him or her?

9.   Was there evidence of physical surveillance at the same time as the private communication to allow the speaker to be identified?

10. Did the witness hear the voices under the same conditions, or was the emotional state different in each situation?

11. What is the length of time during which the witness was able to hear the voice?

12. Was there any reason for the witness to focus on the voices?

13. What was the condition of the witness when he or she heard the voices, alert or groggy?

14. What was the length of time between the times the witness heard the voices?

15. Were there any contradictions in the description given by the witness - did the witness testify that the accused spoke with an accent when he or she did not?

16. Did anything compromise the identification process - was the witness assisted in identifying the voice, or was the witness' opinion tainted by the expectation that the voice was that of the accused?

17. Is the witness' opinion contradicted?

See R. v. Williams, [1995] O.J. No. 1012, 1995 CanLII 695 (O.N.C.A.); R. v. Chan, 2001 BCSC 1180 at para. 31; R. v. Saddleback, 2013 ABCA 250 at para. 25; R. v. Pinch, 2011 ONSC 5484 at paras. 67-80.