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.” ...

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement tendered for the truth of its contents. While all relevant evidence is generally admissible, hearsay is presumptively inadmissible, given the dangers it presents. Because hearsay is declared outside of court, it is often difficult for the trier of fact to assess whether it is trustworthy. Hearsay dangers arise notably due to the absence of contemporaneous cross-examination of the hearsay declarant before the trier of fact. R. v. Khelawon , 2006 SCC 57 (CanLII), at paras. 35. The c ore hearsay dangers are as follows— Perception     The declarant may have misperceived the facts to which the hearsay statement relates; Memory Perception Even if correctly perceived, the relevant facts may have been wrongly remembered ; Narration The declarant may have narrated the relevant facts in an unintentionally misleading manner ; Sincerity The declarant may have knowingly made a false assertion . R. v. Bradsha...