R v Castaneda [2015] NSWSC 964

R v Castaneda [2015] NSWSC 964

Evidence that Ms Lucas told the accused that the deceased was violent and aggressive when drunk and had been violent and abusive to Ms Lucas was relevant to the subjective aspects of self-defence and had significant probative value as tendency evidence concerning the deceased's violence towards female partners when intoxicated, but the email and Facebook document trail contained inadmissible material and could not be admitted in its current form. The Invacare evidence was excluded because it amounted to inadmissible credit or bad character evidence about the deceased and no relevant exception was established at this stage. The Seracco evidence was excluded because its sparse account did...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Murder / Voir Dire Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Lucas evidence admitted, although not in its current form; Invacare evidence excluded; Seracco evidence excluded.
Legal Topics
['voir Dire' 'admissibility' 'self Defence' 'tendency Evidence' 'credibility Evidence' 'relevance']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['voir Dire' 'admissibility' 'self Defence' 'tendency Evidence' 'credibility Evidence' 'relevance']

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 Prosecution for Murder / Voir Dire Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence from Cassandra Lucas about what she told the accused concerning the deceased's alleged violence and abuse was admissible in relation to self-defence and as tendency evidence." "Whether the Invacare evidence about the deceased's employment circumstances was admissible as evidence bearing on the deceased's credibility." "Whether Stephanie Seracco's evidence about a conversation with the deceased concerning a fight with the accused was relevant and admissible."]

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence that Ms Lucas told the accused that the deceased was violent and aggressive when drunk and had been violent and abusive to Ms Lucas was relevant to the subjective aspects of self-defence and had significant probative value as tendency evidence concerning the deceased's violence towards female partners when intoxicated, but the email and Facebook document trail contained inadmissible material and could not be admitted in its current form. The Invacare evidence was excluded because it amounted to inadmissible credit or bad character evidence about the deceased and no relevant exception was established at this stage. The Seracco evidence was excluded because its sparse account did...

Court Disposition

Lucas evidence admitted, although not in its current form; Invacare evidence excluded; Seracco evidence excluded.

Orders

  • ['Evidence of Cassandra Lucas is admitted, although not in its current form' 'Invacare evidence is excluded.' 'Evidence of Stephanie Seracco is excluded.']