R. v. Patriquen

Parties

Procedural Posture

Criminal (conspiracy Trafficking in Cannabis) / Pre Trial Application (admissibility Hearing on Co Conspirator Hearsay Exception)

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the trial judge or the trier of fact determines admissibility of co-conspirator hearsay
2. 2 What procedural threshold of directly admissible evidence is required before applying the hearsay exception
3. 3 Whether particular acts or declarations are "in furtherance of" the conspiracy and who decides that

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate procedure is that outlined in R. v. Carter and R. v. Stewart: a threshold of directly admissible evidence raising the probability of membership must exist, but whether particular statements or acts are "in furtherance" is a question for the trier of fact (jury) to decide, subject to clear trial judge instructions on the threshold and limitations before the hearsay exception is applied.

Court Disposition

Application resolved: procedure governed by R. v. Carter and R. v. Stewart; determination of whether particular evidence is "in furtherance" left to the trier of fact subject to threshold requirements and judicial instructions.

Orders

• Admissibility to be determined at trial by the trier of fact following the procedure in R. v. Carter and R. v. Stewart.
• Trial judge to instruct the jury on the threshold requirement of directly admissible evidence and on the limitation that only statements or acts in furtherance of the conspiracy may be used against co-accused.