Rap Lyrics as Evidence (Part 1)
“Real niggaz don’t
crack to the coppers, muthafucka”.
Rap lyrics are often a
vehicle for social and political commentary.
Sometimes they are profane, violent, and disturbingly mean-spirited. And sometimes they are evidence.
As Crown evidence, the artistic self-expression of an accused often has little probative value. When that self-expression is inflammatory and transgressive (as some rap lyrics are) its use at trial can be highly prejudicial. But that is not always the case. For instance, in the recent R. v. Skeete, 2017 ONCA 926, an inflammatory rap lyric (above) was held to be admissible as evidence, its probative value outweighing the prejudicial effect of its admission.
As Crown evidence, the artistic self-expression of an accused often has little probative value. When that self-expression is inflammatory and transgressive (as some rap lyrics are) its use at trial can be highly prejudicial. But that is not always the case. For instance, in the recent R. v. Skeete, 2017 ONCA 926, an inflammatory rap lyric (above) was held to be admissible as evidence, its probative value outweighing the prejudicial effect of its admission.
Admissions Against Interest
Admissions,
in the broad sense, refer to any statement (or conduct) made
by a litigant and tendered as evidence at trial by the opposing party.
R. v. Foreman,
2002 CanLII 6305 (ON CA).
The admission need not be
against the declarant’s interest (notwithstanding that admissions are sometimes
categorized as “admissions against interest”).
Admissions are
presumptively admissible without the necessity of a voir dire. [FN]
R. v. S.G.T., 2010
SCC 20 (CanLII);
R.
v. Foreman, 2002 CanLII 6305 (ON CA),
at para. 37.
Admissions are received
as an incident or product of the adversary system when tendered by the opposite
party. Reception of admissions is rooted in the belief that what a party has
previously stated can be admitted against the party in whose mouth it ill lies
to complain of the unreliability of his or her own statement.
R. v. Evans, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 653, at p. 664.
An admission against interest made
by the accused is admissible as a recognized exception to the hearsay rule,
provided that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.
R. v. Terry, 1996 CanLII 199 (SCC), at para. 28.
Probative Value
The term “probative”
means “tending to prove”. In assessing
probative value, a trial judge is necessarily determining the degree or extent
to which the evidence will prove the material fact in issue for which it is
tendered.
Some weighing of the
evidence is involved in determining probative value. What this weighing
exercise requires will vary according to the specific inferences sought to be
drawn from the piece of evidence.
R. v. Skeete, 2017 ONCA 926 , at para. 153;
R. v. Hart, 2014 SCC 52, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 544.
Identifying the Probative Value in Forms of Artistic
Expression
As a form of artistic expression, a rap
song lyric is not necessarily probative of the "truth" expressed
therein; an author may have any number of motivations for expressing him- or
herself in a given fashion, only one of which is to recite what he or she did.
See
R. v. Terry, 1996 CanLII 199 (SCC),
at para. 29 (discussing the probative value of a poem).
Because an author has
chosen to write about certain topics, it may not be reasonable to infer that he
or she holds or acts in accordance with those views. It logically follows that
we ought not to be too ready to embrace lyrics as a basis upon which to infer a
particular state of mind in their author.
R. v. Terry, at para. 156;
R. v. Skeete, at para. 182:
the nature of the evidence – a form of artistic self-expression – is a
factor a trial judge should consider in assessing its probative value.
Fictional forms of
inflammatory self-expression, such as poems, musical compositions, and other
like writings about bad acts, wrongful acts, or crimes, are not properly
evidential unless the writing reveals a strong nexus between the specific
details of the artistic composition and the circumstances of the underlying
offense for which a person is charged, and the probative value of that evidence
outweighs its apparent prejudicial impact.
State v. Skinner, 218 N.J. 496 (2014) [New Jersey Supreme Court].
In R. v. Skeete, the Court of Appeal concluded there was a significant
nexus between the admission (the rap lyric) and the appellant’s motive to kill
the deceased:
“The lyric
expressed the code of silence. It was open to an inference that the appellant,
as its composer, knew about the code. Knowledge of the code may support an
inference of belief in it, and belief may support an inference of enforcement
in response to a breach. These need not be the only inferences available for
the evidence to have probative value.”
[FN] It is only where the accused makes a statement to a
“person in authority” that the Crown bears the onus of proving the
voluntariness of the statement as a prerequisite to its admission, under the
confessions rule.
Stuart
O’Connell, O’Connell Law Group, www.leadersinlaw.ca
Comments
Post a Comment