Stuart O'Connell Criminal Law Blog

Pursuant to the traditional, fixed, “state of mind exception” to the hearsay rule exception, an out-of-court statement made by a person may be admitted if it discloses their relevant, present existing state of mind, and the statement was made in a natural manner and not under circumstances of suspicion.  FN1. Evidence satisfying this exception will be  prima facie  admissible, but only “in order to demonstrate the intentions or state of mind of the declarant at the time the statement was made”. FN2. Statements admitted pursuant to this exception cannot be used to establish the past acts or events that the statements describe. FN3 The hearsay exception in action R. v. Griffin provides an example of the hearsay exception in action. In that case, the sole issue at trial was the identity of P’s killer.   P was in hiding in the weeks leading up to his murder and during this time stated to his girlfriend, “If anything happens to me it’s your cousin’s family.” ...

 It is an error in principle for a sentencing judge to fail to provide notice and an opportunity for further submissions when they are considering exceeding the Crown’s position on sentence.  FN1 Where the sentencing judge fails to provide notice and/or an opportunity for further submissions, there are three types of errors in principle that would warrant intervention by the appellate court:   1. The accused would have provided additional information to the sentencing judge if given notice that he thought the Crown’s recommendation was too low and this additional information would have impacted sentence; 2.    The sentencing judge provided unclear or insufficient reasons explaining the imposition of the harsher sentence; 3. The sentencing judge gave erroneous reasons for the harsher sentence. (Standing alone, however, flawed reasoning will not be enough; the appellant must also satisfy the court that this reasoning impacted the sentence). FN2    ...

There is a fantastic online safety ad created by the New Zealand government as part of its public awareness campaign, Keep It Real Online . The 2020 ad has rightly gone viral and is one of my all-time favourites. In it two adult film actors (played by Cassandra Woodhouse and Paris Theodosiou) arrive naked at the front door of a young teenager’s house and tell his stunned mother “Hiya …We just came over because your 14-year-old son has been watching us…online… . Online we just get to it, we never really talk about consent. …We usually perform for adults but your son’s just a kid.” The dumbfounded son emerges from inside the house holding his laptop. His shocked mother (hair wrapped in a towel) reels from the disclosure that her son has been accessing pornography from his computer, and from the fact that two nude people have come to her door to explain—with hilarious nonchalance—that the online pornographic scenarios they are part of are not necessarily representative of “how relationshi...

Most Canadians would be likely be surprised to learn just how many of their fellow citizens have a criminal record.     According to Public Safety Canada, 3.8 million Canadians had criminal records in 2016. [FN1] To give you a sense of just how many among us have criminal records, the current population of Canada is approximately 38 million. The percentage of Canada’s adult population with a criminal record (approximately 10%) does not appear to have changed significantly in the last two decades.   [FN2] Most of those who have a criminal record go on to live law-abiding lives (or on a less optimistic view: are not convicted again if they do not).   But as they go forward, they can find their options limited. There is stigma to having a criminal record. That will surprise few. Consider how many people you know have disclosed to you that they have a criminal record.   If you are like me (at least outside my professional work as a defence lawyer), very few. ...

The standard upon which sufficiency of reasons is to be assessed in the criminal context is whether the reasons are inadequate and if so whether they prevent appellate review:  R. v. Gagnon ,  2006 SCC 17 , [2006] 1 S.C.R. 621, at para  13 ;  R. v. Sheppard ,  2002 SCC 26 , [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869, at para.  20 ;  R. v. Slatter ,  2019 ONCA 807 , 452 D.L.R. (4th) 4, at paras.  107-111 .   The reasons must show why the trial judge made a certain decision:   R. v. Vuradin ,  2013 SCC 38 , [2013] 2 S.C.R. 639, at para.  15 .   As R. v. Suganaqueb , 2022 ONCA 193 demonstrates, these standards for the sufficiency of reasons operate even when the accused consents to the imposition of an order.  In Suganaqueb , the accused consented to the imposition of a dangerous offender designation (and an indeterminate sentence).   The sentencing judge was satisfied that the accused’s consent was informed and volitio...

Subject:  Unexplored theory of liability--trial fairness--fundamentally unfair to convict an accused person on a theory of which they are entirely unaware. At the very least, a trial judge ought to  alert trial counsel to the possibility of a conviction on a theory of liability which the Crown has not explicitly advanced nor which can be fairly inferred as having being put in play from the argument and evidence presented by the Crown.  The trier of fact is not confined to the Crown’s theory in determining liability. As a general principle, a conviction may be based on an alternative theory of liability not advanced by the Crown so long as it falls within the wording of the indictment and is supported by the evidence.   However, the application of this principle is not without constraint. In particular, this principle does not address the corresponding principle of trial fairness . An accused person is entitled to know the case that they are being asked to meet. It ...