Is Demeanour evidence Hearsay?


See my earlier blog entry Hearsay in a Nutshell for a general elaboration as to the nature of hearsay.  In this blog entry I will discuss the relationship between demeanour evidence and hearsay.

Although hearsay typically consists of spoken words, it can consist of conduct.  Such conduct can be of two types:  assertive and non-assertive. 

R. v. Badgerow, 2014 ONCA 272, 119 O.R. (3d) 399 at para 106,

 leave to appeal refused
Assertive conduct


Assertive conduct refers to non-verbal conduct that is intended as an assertion.  Examples of assertive conduct include nodding the head (indicating “yes”) and pointing to someone or something.  Assertive conduct is conduct that is tendered in evidence to prove the truth of an assertion
Badgerow, at para. 107
Non-assertive conduct
Non-assertive conduct describes conduct, whether by words or deeds or both, from which the trier is asked to infer a statement based on the “declarant’s” belief.

Badgerow, at para. 109

Demeanour evidence is not assertive conduct, but is it hearsay by non-assertive conduct?

Demeanour evidence is not assertive conduct.  A person’s facial expression (or non-expression) is not non-verbal conduct like a nod of the head or pointing at something.

R. v. H.B., 2016 ONCA 953, at para 82

Demeanour evidence is not necessarily hearsay by non-assertive conduct        
As for demeanor evidence being hearsay by non-assertive conduct: simply because the Crown or the defence asks the jury to draw an inference from the demeanour evidence does not render that evidence an implied statement of belief adduced for the truth of its contents.  

R. v. H.B., at para 83

In R. v. H.B., the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the demeanour evidence of the complainant’s mother (the observable emotional state of the complainant’s mother upon being told of the allegations her daughter had made against the accused) was not hearsay; rather, it was circumstantial evidence from which the jury could draw a range of inferences.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Warrantless Drug Searches (Section 11(7) of the CDSA)

Were there exigent circumstances? Did the exigent circumstances render it impracticable to obtain a warrant? Section 11(7)   of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states: (7) A peace officer may exercise any of the powers described in subsection (1), (5) or (6) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain one. Subsection (1)   of s. 11 empowers a peace officer to conduct a warranted search of a place for, inter alia , a controlled substance and to seize it. Section 11(7), therefore, empowers a peace officer to conduct a warrantless search for a controlled substance, so long as conditions for obtaining a warrant existed and exigent circumstances made it impracticable for the officer to obtain a warrant. For a warrantless entry into a residence to satisfy section 11(7) , the Crown must show that the entry was compelled by urgency, calling for immediate police action to prese
Read more

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants

At common law, where the police had reasonable grounds to arrest a suspect and reasonable grounds to believe a suspect was in a private dwelling-house, they were entitled to enter and arrest the suspect, with or without an arrest warrant, if proper announcement was made. See R. v. Landry , 1986 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145 , and Eccles v. Bourque et al. , 1974 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739 ). However, in the 1997 decision of R. v. Feeney , the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the common law violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that generally, warrantless arrests within private dwellings were prohibited.  Absent exigent circumstances or cases of hot pursuit, an entry warrant would be required to enter a dwelling house to make an arrest.    R. v. Feeney , 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), at paras. 44-51.  Parliament responded by enacting sections 529-529.5 of the Criminal Code , which, among other things, creates two distinct authorizatio
Read more

Night time Execution of a Search Warrant

Warrants Authorized under the Criminal Code The Criminal Code requires that if a warrant is to be executed at night (after 9:00 p.m., see Criminal Code , s. 2), the night time execution must be justified under the terms of s. 488 of the Criminal Code .    Section 488 of the Criminal Code is not made applicable to warrants and telewarrants issued under the authority of section 11 of the CDSA, which may be executed “at any time”.  R. v. Shivrattan, 2017 ONCA 23; R. v. Saunders , 2003 NLCA 63, 181 C.C.C. (3d) 268, at paras. 27, 31-32, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 SCC 70, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 505; R. v. Dueck , 2005 BCCA 448, 200 C.C.C. (3d) 378, at paras. 17-21; and R. v. Newell , [2007] O.J. No. 2348, at para. 47 (Ont. S.C.). Warrants Authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Unlike warrants issued under the Criminal Code , there is no statutory presumption that warrants issued under s. 11 of the CDSA are to be executed before 9:00 p.m. unless night t
Read more