Cross-Examining the Accused about why the Complainant Would Falsely Accuse Him
Questions in cross-examination that ask an accused person to explain why a complainant would fabricate his or her allegations are improper. R. v. Rose , 2001 CanLII 24079 (ON CA), at para. 27: It is improper to call upon an accused to comment on the credibility of his accusers. See also R. v. L.L. , 2009 ONCA 413 (CanLII), at paras. 15-16. The concern with this line of questioning is two-fold: 1. It is unfair to ask an accused to speculate about a witness’s motives; 2. These questions risk shifting the burden of proof. The burden is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a complainant’s allegations are true. Yet questions to an accused about a complainant’s motives may cause the trier of fact to focus on whether the accused can provide an explanation for why a complainant would make false allegations, and find the accused guilty if a credible explanation is not fort...