Recognition Evidence : Eyewitness identification based on Prior Acquaintance
Recognition
evidence
Recognition evidence is a subset of eyewitness
identification evidence, in which the eyewitness’ identification is based on
prior acquaintance. The recognition witness may or may not have been present at
the scene of the crime.
As a form of identification evidence “[t]he same
concerns apply and the same caution must be taken in considering its
reliability as in dealing with any other identification evidence.”
R.
v. Olliffe, 2015 ONCA 242, at para. 39.
The
test for admitting recognition evidence
This type of
non-expert opinion evidence is admissible provided that the witness has a prior
acquaintance with the accused and is thus in a better position than the trier
of fact to identify the perpetrator.
R. v. Leaney, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 393;R. v. Brown, 215 C.C.C. (3d) 330 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 39.
The
importance of identifying particular features or idiosyncrasies of the person
to be identified
The importance of unique identifiable features varies
with how well the witness knows the person he or she identifies:
Common experience teaches
that people have vastly different abilities to identify and articulate the
particular features of the people in their lives that they know, recognize, and
distinguish on a regular basis. Where a witness has but little acquaintanceship
with the accused, his or her recognition evidence may be of little value unless
the witness can explain its basis in some considerable detail. But at the other
end of the spectrum, the bare conclusory recognition evidence of a person long
and closely familiar with the accused may have substantial value, even where
the witness does not articulate the particular features or idiosyncrasies that
underlie the recognition.
R. v. Panghali, [2010] B.C.J. No. 2729 at para. 42, a proposition endorsed in R. v. Berhe, 2012 ONCA 716, 113 O.R. (3d) 137.
R. v. Panghali, [2010] B.C.J. No. 2729 at para. 42, a proposition endorsed in R. v. Berhe, 2012 ONCA 716, 113 O.R. (3d) 137.
The threshold admissibility of recognition evidence
does not necessarily require a witness to point to some unique identifiable
feature or idiosyncrasy of the person to be identified; however, where the
eyewitness does not have a “long and closely familiar” relationship with the
accused, the inability of the witness to do so is an important factor affecting
the weight that the evidence should ultimately receive.
R.
v. M.B., 2017 ONCA 653, at para. 47.
Stuart O’Connell, O’Connell
Law Group, www.leadersinlaw.ca
Comments
Post a Comment