R v Tarantino (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 985

R v Tarantino (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 985

The disputed evidence is admissible because, when considered together and in context, it is capable of being treated by the jury as evidence of the accused's contemplation or planning of the specific crime charged, rather than merely as propensity evidence. The time elapsed does not render it inadmissible, and its relevance is supported by other evidence in the case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Evidence admitted
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'statements of Accused' 'propensity Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'statements of Accused' 'propensity 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 / Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether statements of the accused's cousin recounting conversations with the accused are admissible as evidence of the accused planning the alleged kidnapping" 'Whether these conversations constitute propensity evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

The disputed evidence is admissible because, when considered together and in context, it is capable of being treated by the jury as evidence of the accused's contemplation or planning of the specific crime charged, rather than merely as propensity evidence. The time elapsed does not render it inadmissible, and its relevance is supported by other evidence in the case.

Court Disposition

Evidence admitted

Orders

  • ["Disputed parts of Mr White's statement admitted, subject to any further ruling concerning the shooting incident evidence."]