R. v. Riley

R. v. Riley

The court excluded both intercepted calls: Intercept #9 was inadmissible as an admission (no clear adoption and overwhelming prejudicial hearsay) and, despite some circumstantial probative value as after-the-fact conduct, its probative value was substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect; Intercept #1224 was inadmissible because the contested statements were ambiguous, of at best nominal probative value, and their prejudicial effect (including highlighting custody and implicating the right to silence) outweighed any utility.

Citation
2022 NSSC 226
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Randy Desmond Riley
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder and Firearms Offences / Pre Trial Admissibility Ruling on Intercepted Communications for Retrial
Outcome
Crown's application to admit Intercept #9 and Intercept #1224 is denied.
Legal Topics
Admissions, Adoptive Admissions by Silence, After the Fact Conduct, Hearsay, Probative Vs Prejudicial Balancing, Right to Silence, Intercepted Communications, Severance
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Admissions Adoptive Admissions by Silence After the Fact Conduct Hearsay Probative Vs Prejudicial Balancing Right to Silence +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Randy Desmond Riley

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Murder and Firearms Offences / Pre Trial Admissibility Ruling on Intercepted Communications for Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is Intercept #9 relevant to a material fact and admissible as an admission?
  2. 2 Is Intercept #9 admissible as after-the-fact conduct evidence?
  3. 3 Does the probative value of Intercept #9 outweigh its prejudicial effect?

Ratio Decidendi

The court excluded both intercepted calls: Intercept #9 was inadmissible as an admission (no clear adoption and overwhelming prejudicial hearsay) and, despite some circumstantial probative value as after-the-fact conduct, its probative value was substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect; Intercept #1224 was inadmissible because the contested statements were ambiguous, of at best nominal probative value, and their prejudicial effect (including highlighting custody and implicating the right to silence) outweighed any utility.

Court Disposition

Crown's application to admit Intercept #9 and Intercept #1224 is denied.

Orders

  • Intercept #9 excluded from evidence
  • Intercept #1224 excluded from evidence