R. v. Folbigg [2003] NSWCCA 17

R. v. Folbigg [2003] NSWCCA 17

The evidence concerning the other counts and other children was admissible as coincidence evidence on each count. The primary judge did not err in substance: the similarities between the deaths and the ALTE, the absence of SIDS, common metabolic abnormality or any other cause exceeding a reasonable possibility, the substantial possibility of asphyxiation, and the diary entries meant that the evidence, viewed circumstantially and count by count, had probative value which substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect and left no rational view consistent with innocence for admissibility purposes. Because that conclusion justified refusing separate trials, it was unnecessary to decide...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Concerning Separate Trials and Admissibility of Coincidence Evidence / Application to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Wood CJ at Cl's Dismissal of an Application for Separate Trials
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['separate Trials' 'coincidence Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'similar Fact Evidence' 'probative Value and Unfair Prejudice' 'infant Deaths' 'murder Charges']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['separate Trials' 'coincidence Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'similar Fact Evidence' 'probative Value and Unfair Prejudice' 'infant Deaths' 'murder Charges']

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 Application for Leave to Appeal Concerning Separate Trials and Admissibility of Coincidence Evidence / Application to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Wood CJ at Cl's Dismissal of an Application for Separate Trials

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in ruling that evidence relating to other counts would be admissible as coincidence evidence or tendency evidence on each count.' 'Whether the evidence satisfied ss 98 and 101(2) of the Evidence Act and the Pfennig test for similar fact evidence.' 'Whether medical evidence affected by statistical or probability reasoning could be relied upon in assessing admissibility.' 'Whether any prejudicial effect, including possible jury confusion, substantially outweighed or outweighed the probative value of the evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence concerning the other counts and other children was admissible as coincidence evidence on each count. The primary judge did not err in substance: the similarities between the deaths and the ALTE, the absence of SIDS, common metabolic abnormality or any other cause exceeding a reasonable possibility, the substantial possibility of asphyxiation, and the diary entries meant that the evidence, viewed circumstantially and count by count, had probative value which substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect and left no rational view consistent with innocence for admissibility purposes. Because that conclusion justified refusing separate trials, it was unnecessary to decide...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed.' 'The fact of the application and the result may be published, but ordered that the reasons not be published until further order.']