R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 23) [2016] NSWSC 103

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 23) [2016] NSWSC 103

The evidence of gunshot residue on the cap and black pants was relevant because it could rationally affect the assessment of the identity of the person who shot the deceased. Its probative value was significant and was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice: the jury could infer the seized cap and pants were the same items seen on Rogerson, there was no demonstrated real risk of illegitimate reasoning or undue weight, the existence of alternative hypotheses did not make the evidence unfairly prejudicial, and any alleged evidentiary void was for the jury to assess. The mauve shirt evidence was rejected because there was no evidence Rogerson wore that item on the day of the murder.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding; Evidence Admissibility Ruling / Objection to Crown Evidence of Gunshot Residue on Clothing
Outcome
Evidence of the analysis of the cap and black pants admitted; tender of the analysis of the mauve shirt rejected.
Legal Topics
['gunshot Residue Evidence' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'circumstantial Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['gunshot Residue Evidence' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'circumstantial Evidence']

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; Evidence Admissibility Ruling / Objection to Crown Evidence of Gunshot Residue on Clothing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of gunshot residue found on the cap and black pants seized from Rogerson's premises was relevant to the identity of the person who shot the deceased." 'Whether that evidence should be excluded under s. 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Rogerson.' 'Whether evidence of gunshot residue found on a mauve shirt should be admitted where there was no evidence Rogerson wore it on the day of the murder.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of gunshot residue on the cap and black pants was relevant because it could rationally affect the assessment of the identity of the person who shot the deceased. Its probative value was significant and was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice: the jury could infer the seized cap and pants were the same items seen on Rogerson, there was no demonstrated real risk of illegitimate reasoning or undue weight, the existence of alternative hypotheses did not make the evidence unfairly prejudicial, and any alleged evidentiary void was for the jury to assess. The mauve shirt evidence was rejected because there was no evidence Rogerson wore that item on the day of the murder.

Court Disposition

Evidence of the analysis of the cap and black pants admitted; tender of the analysis of the mauve shirt rejected.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of the analysis of the cap and black pants should be admitted.' 'The tender of the analysis of the mauve shirt is rejected.']