R v Xie (No 7) [2015] NSWSC 2120

R v Xie (No 7) [2015] NSWSC 2120

MFI 136 was not admitted because the sketch and photographs of marks on the doona were not capable of rationally affecting the jury's assessment of whether there was, or possibly was, more than one assailant. The marks were in blood but were not identified as shoe marks and could be from a myriad of sources; admitting the material for the use proposed by the accused could invite the jury to conclude there might be a shoe print from another person and to disregard Dr Raymond's expert opinion without cross-examination on that issue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial on Tender of MFI 136
Outcome
Evidence not admitted
Legal Topics
['relevance' 'admissibility' 'crime Scene Sketch Plans' 'shoe Print Impressions' 'expert Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['relevance' 'admissibility' 'crime Scene Sketch Plans' 'shoe Print Impressions' 'expert 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 / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial on Tender of MFI 136

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether MFI 136, comprising Constable Davis' sketch of the doona and accompanying photographs of marks nominated as possible shoe marks, should be admitted into evidence." "Whether the pictorial representation of the marks was capable of rationally affecting the jury's assessment of the probability of there being more than one assailant."]

Ratio Decidendi

MFI 136 was not admitted because the sketch and photographs of marks on the doona were not capable of rationally affecting the jury's assessment of whether there was, or possibly was, more than one assailant. The marks were in blood but were not identified as shoe marks and could be from a myriad of sources; admitting the material for the use proposed by the accused could invite the jury to conclude there might be a shoe print from another person and to disregard Dr Raymond's expert opinion without cross-examination on that issue.

Court Disposition

Evidence not admitted

Orders

  • ['Tender of MFI 136 rejected']