Prior Consistent Statements
Prior consistent
statements are declarations made by witnesses before they take the stand that
are consistent with the testimony they give while on the stand.
David
M. Paciocco, "The Perils and Potential of Prior Consistent Statements:
Let's Get It Right" (2013) 17 Can. Crim. L.R. 181, at p. 181.
Prior consistent
statements are generally inadmissible. Traditionally, they have been treated as
inadmissible because they are out-of-court statements made in the absence of
trial safeguards such as cross-examination and the taking of an oath or
affirmation to tell the truth. The hearsay rule precludes the admission of
prior consistent statements for the truth of their contents. Additionally,
prior consistent statements lack probative value.
See
R. v. Stirling, 2008 SCC 10 (CanLI), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 10,
at para. 5; R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24 (CanLII), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788,
at para. 36.
Put differently,
repetition of a statement by the same person does not render it more likely to
be true or corroborative. The repetition is self-serving and the source lacks
independence. Lastly, given that the evidence will have already been adduced at
trial through oral testimony, exclusion of prior consistent statements serves
the desirable objective of trial efficiency.
R. v. D.B., 2013 ONCA 578 (CanLII).
Exceptions to the rule against prior consistent
statements
There are some exceptions
to the rule that prior consistent statements are inadmissible, including narrative
and recent fabrication. The exceptions exist because the purpose behind
exclusion is not served.
See
also blog post O’Connell, Edgar
Statements: an Exception to the Rule Against Prior Consistent Statements,
Dec 09, 2016.
Narrative
As narrative, a statement
is admitted as evidence of the fact that something was said or heard, but not
tendered for the truth of what was said or heard.
Dinardo, at
para. 37, R. v. J.A.T., 2012 ONCA 177 (CanLII), 288 C.C.C. (3d) 1, at para. 99; R. v. Magloir, 2003 NSCA 74 (CanLII), 178 C.C.C. (3d) 310, at
para. 23.
Recent Fabrication
An allegation of recent
fabrication is an allegation that goes to the heart of a witness’s credibility:
an allegation that the complainant has made up a false story to meet the exigencies
of the case.
To be “recent”, a fabrication need only have
been made after the event testified about.
R. v.
Ellard, 2009 SCC 27 (CanLII), at para. 33; R. v. O’Connor (1995), 1995 CanLII 255 (ON CA), 25 O.R. (3d) 19 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [1995] S.C.C.A. No.
460.
It is not sufficient to
invoke the principles relating to recent
fabrication that there only be an
allegation of fabrication. It must be recent
fabrication in order to permit the
introduction of a prior consistent statement.
The fact that the whole
story of a witness is challenged does not, by itself, constitute an allegation
of recent fabrication.
R. v. Campbell,
1977 CanLII 1191 (ON CA).
Recent fabrication is a
rebuttal rule. A prior consistent
statement that is admissible to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication is
not admitted to prove the truth of its contents. Rather, it neutralizes the
challenge or allegation of recent fabrication. The evidence of the prior
consistent statement is used to establish that the challenge is in error, not
to show that exigencies the statement is true or that the witness is likely
telling the truth because they said the same thing before.
R. v. D. B., at
para. 37; Paciocco, p. 191.
Stuart
O’Connell, O’Connell Law Group, www.leadersinlaw.ca
Comments
Post a Comment