R v Tran (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1391

R v Tran (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1391

Because the elements of murder were conceded, an intention to kill was not practically in issue, and the jury already had a scaled photograph of the axe and other graphic evidence about the killing, the axe itself had reasonably low probative value. Although the danger of unfair prejudice was also reasonably low, some jurors could be unfairly prejudiced by holding a container containing the weapon used violently to end a human life. That danger outweighed the probative value, so s 137 required exclusion of the axe.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding for Murder, With the Accused Pleading Not Guilty to Murder But Guilty to Manslaughter on the Basis of Substantial Impairment / Procedural Ruling on an Objection Under S 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) to Admission of the Axe Into Evidence
Outcome
The axe was not admitted into evidence.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Homicide Weapon' 'probative Value' 'danger of Unfair Prejudice' 'substantial Impairment Partial Defence' 'murder and Manslaughter']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Homicide Weapon' 'probative Value' 'danger of Unfair Prejudice' 'substantial Impairment Partial Defence' 'murder and Manslaughter']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceeding for Murder, With the Accused Pleading Not Guilty to Murder But Guilty to Manslaughter on the Basis of Substantial Impairment / Procedural Ruling on an Objection Under S 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) to Admission of the Axe Into Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the axe used in the fatal assault should be admitted into evidence and go into the jury room.' 'Whether, under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), the danger of unfair prejudice outweighed the probative value of the axe.' "Whether the accused's intention to kill was practically a fact in issue given the concessions and the anticipated conduct of the defence."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the elements of murder were conceded, an intention to kill was not practically in issue, and the jury already had a scaled photograph of the axe and other graphic evidence about the killing, the axe itself had reasonably low probative value. Although the danger of unfair prejudice was also reasonably low, some jurors could be unfairly prejudiced by holding a container containing the weapon used violently to end a human life. That danger outweighed the probative value, so s 137 required exclusion of the axe.

Court Disposition

The axe was not admitted into evidence.

Orders

  • ['The axe is not admitted into evidence.' 'The axe will not be going into the jury room.']