Disclosure Cannot be Used as a Trap
Every accused has a constitutional
right to hear Crown witnesses and have disclosure before testifying.
As a matter of common
sense, there may be considerable force to the suggestion that a person who gets
full advance notice of the other side's evidence and testifies last is in a
position to tailor his or her evidence to fit the disclosure.
Notwithstanding, an accused’s
constitutional right to disclosure cannot be allowed to become a trap.
R.
v. Marshall (2005), 2005 CanLII 30051 (ON CA), at para. 71.
As a general rule, the
Crown is prohibited from alleging that an accused person has tailored his
evidence after receiving Crown disclosure or after hearing the Crown’s evidence
at the preliminary inquiry or at trial, absent evidence of recent fabrication.
Such allegations are improper and unfair.
R.
v. Peavoy, 1997 CanLII 3028 (ON CA).
Relatedly,
it is also a general rule that the prosecutor's cross-examination of an accused that is
calculated to suggest to the jury that an accused's testimony was suspect
because she or he had received disclosure, knew the prosecution's case and had
not been asked to reveal her or his own case until testifying at trial is at
once improper and potentially prejudicial.
R. v. White, 1999 CanLII 3695 (ON CA).
Improper cross-examination
of an accused may taint a trial by causing actual prejudice to the accused or
by creating the appearance of unfairness:
R. v. White.
However, while questions
concerning disclosure are “always potentially dangerous”, not every reference
to disclosure is necessarily impermissible.
R. v. White.
The prudent course
whenever Crown counsel wish to cross-examine on matters relating to disclosure
is to vet the proposed line of questioning with the trial judge in the absence
of the jury.
R. v. White.
Trial counsel for the
accused should be vigilant and object to any improper cross-examination on the
use of disclosure, as on appeal the failure of trial counsel to object can
afford some indication that counsel did not consider the cross-examination
unfair or prejudicial.
R. v.
F.E.E., 2011 ONCA 783 (CanLII), at para. 77.
When Cross-examination is permissible
Whether cross-examination
of an accused about his or her receipt of and familiarity with prosecutorial
disclosure is permissible or improper depends on the circumstances of each
case.
R. v. Thain, 2009
ONCA 223 (CanLII), at
para. 24.
Some examples of circumstances
in which cross-examination may be proper include the following:
·
Accused brings an alibi defence
One instance in which it
may be appropriate for a prosecutor to refer in cross-examination to an
accused's receipt of disclosure is to undermine a defence of alibi, thereby to
contend that the accused has tailored his or her evidence to fit the Crown's
disclosure.
R. v. Thain,
at para. 24; R. v. Khan, 1998 CanLII 15007 (BC
CA), [1998]
B.C.J. No. 1450, 126 C.C.C. (3d) 523 (C.A.), at para. 50; R. v. Marshall (2005),
2005 CanLII 30051 (ON CA), 77 O.R. (3d) 81, [2005] O.J.
No. 3549 (C.A.), at paras. 74-75;
and R. v. Simon, 2001 CanLII 11996 (QC CA),
[2001]
J.Q. no 1328, 154 C.C.C. (3d) 562 (C.A.), at pp. 573-74 C.C.C.
·
Accused uses Crown disclosure to corroborate his own
evidence
Where the accused has
suggested that records in the Crown disclosure confirm aspects of his
testimony, it may be proper for the Crown to cross-examine on the fact that the
accused received and reviewed the disclosure prior to trial so that his or her
testimony can be viewed in that light:
Thain
at para. 24; White at p. 768; see also R. v. Cavan and Scott (1999), 1999 CanLII 9309
(ON CA), 139 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (Ont. C.A.); R.
v. Kokotailo, (2008),
2008 BCCA 168 (CanLII), 232 C.C.C. (3d) 279 (B.C.C.A.).
·
Where there is evidence of recent fabrication.
Stuart
O’Connell, O’Connell Law Group, www.leadersinlaw.ca
Comments
Post a Comment